UKH

I found myself agreeing with a lot the article regarding how to manage things in the Highlands more effectively. Although a regular visitor I don't live there so I'm sure there are others who see it differently.

https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/news/managing-tourism-lessons-from-overseas...

Edited due to a typo.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

The article offers a lot of observations but you have to dig deeper and ask a few unsettling questions about 'Who owns Scotland?'. 

For example, in France the power of local communities and the Maire system is considerable. Locals have carefully crafted rules regarding hunting, logging and neighbourly disputes and these rules are strictly enforced. 

In the Highlands, who is making the decisions and where does power actually lie? Scotland has the most concentrated private land ownership in Europe. Nowhere in Europe can a huge estate come on the international market and be bought by anyone from anywhere. There is one next to Aviemore for sale right now. 

Another example of that power is the people of Langholm in the Borders struggling to raise £6 million to buy a small piece of land from the Buccleuch Estates, one of the biggest landowners in Scotland.

The estates have a vested interest in conservatism and opposing development. Many Highland estates are loss making and don't need the money. What they often don't want is people coming to the Highlands to spoil the quiet (ironically,  many climbers, hillwalkers and fishermen often feel the same) and interfere with their sport. The powerful conservation bodies like the RSPB and The National Trust are also by nature conservative and oppose development. The Royal Family have strong opinions about this too, ever since Albert stopped the railway line to Braemar. The Highlands has been a theme park for a long time, a beautiful place for people from the Central Belt and further south to enjoy. The more enlightened John Muir Trust has been grappling with this problem about involving local people in decision making, whilst the heroic Andy Wightman, now an MSP of the Scottish Greens, has made many powerful enemies, by asking difficult questions. 

All this has been happening for over 200 years. Many have compared Scotland's land ownership with Norway's and found it wanting, read 'Isles of the North,' for example. 

I would think with independence, if it comes, that many of these issues regarding the development of the Highlands would get tackled with more urgency. The Highlands would then change, and more quickly. Whether you think that is a good or bad thing, depends on who you are. 

In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

The Scottish government could revise the Land Reform act if it chose to do so. It doesn't.

I'd also point out that the op was about visitors' behaviour in the Highlands rather than land ownership.

What is your vision for the Highlands? Your epistle is long on criticism of the status quo but completely absent of any proposals for what a different Highlands might look like. 

In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

Can you explain the problem with any of this?

Having a part of the country that is 'conserved', kept quiet and used for recreation seems like a very good idea to me.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

An interesting article and a lot of it makes sense. It needs actual input and drive on a national level here is Scotland to improve matters. Sadly I can't see that happening for a while. Covid has highlighted many of the issues already apparent with crap, or non existent services. It breaks my heart seeing the rubbish everywhere and un-emptied bins all over the Highlands. Sadly the council aren't tackling any of this, partly due to stretched  finances, but again there is no acknowledgement of the issues as a whole and plan to improve matters. There was some canvassing of a tourist tax pre-covid when a lot of communities were struggling to deal with the popularity of the NC500, maybe that is the was to go if they use the money directly for facilities for visitors such as toilets, bins, parking, van waste disposal. 

A Scottish MP was on the radio a short while back just after lock down was relaxed in relation to travel. He said folk should plan their journeys taking into account facilities such as toilets may not/won't be open! What a stupid thing to say! Scotland was open for business and tourism and no public toilets were open and that was fine with the Scottish government! 

In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

I think most of us on here have a vested interest in keeping the hills and crags quiet whilst still wanting unrestricted access to the Highlands, which I realise is total paradox.

The NC500 is an excellent example of somewhere which has always been popular with those in the know and sufficient desire to visit. As soon as it becomes a bucket list item publicised on the internet it suddenly becomes a magnet for everyone wanting their next photogenic social media post. Other examples include Iceland, Torres del Paine, Chernobyl and anywhere in Northern Ireland which happened to feature in Game of Thrones. 

People will travel to the Highlands in ever greater numbers and I don't think it's feasible to stop it happening. The simple solutions of having plenty of regularly emptied bins and clean usable toilets (preferably sign posted on the major roads) would do a huge amount of benefit, it's how to ensure they are properly funded is the issue. Many (most?) people dislike paying 20p upfront to use the loo so some sh*t around the back, I've seen it happen! I'm not sure how you adequately and fairly charge visitors who are travelling and staying in different ways but most countries seem to manage it somehow.

In reply to ClimberEd: yes, but not if that means entrance is purely on the grounds of being rich enough 

Also being conserved for grouse shooting is not conserving nature, but that's kind of a separate argument 

In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

The problem isn't who owns the land, it's access, environmental and development legislation. I don't think the ratio of private & public ownership in Scandinavia is vastly different, but how the land is viewed and used is a little different.

Given that agriculture, forestry, law & order, environmental and economic development are devolved, what would independent Scotland do, that it can't now?  

In reply to summo:

Yes they are devolved to Scotland but Scotland operates on a finite budget issued from Westminster via. the Bank of England. The same is *not* true for the currency-issuing Westminster which does not operate under the same 'household' constraints (money in, money out) Thatcher had everyone believe it was.

Fiat currency is power. Everything else is fluff.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

I'm not going to sugar coat this.

This place has been other people's playground for too long already. Long ago, my great-great-grandfather's gun business depended on it.

The population used to be two or three times what it is now. Generally, the native population does not have access to significant land ownership and we all suffer the effects of a lifetime of being told that were not good enough and the land is not good enough. 

There is a lot to fix. We can either fix it or concentrate on the tourist sector. 

Neither Edinburgh nor London understand much about this. That is why the likes of Andy Wightman's long and worthy work progresses only slowly

I was long ago suggesting independence for the Highlands and Islands. Independence in the Nordic Council was an early idea: joining with people who understand our issues. 

In reply to kwoods:

You still haven't said what Scotland could do if independent that it can't do whilst devolved? You are evading the question. 

Were you even alive when Thatcher was in power? I'd say you need to move on, but you weren't there in the first place. 

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Tourist tax to be used for tourist infrastructure is the solution for me. You do it the same way as in various other European countries; you tax everyone who spends a night in accommodation £2 per night per person and make it the provider of accommodation's responsibility to add it to the bill. It doesn't catch wild campers or vans but that doesn't seem to be a problem in other places the system is used.

I'm not sure I have a big beef with the big estates tbh. The strong open access legislation we have in Scotland means that everyone can use and enjoy these estates and the days of "get off my land" are gone (in legal terms at least). Also more recent legislation has curbed the ability of these large estates to do things like bulldozing a giant track up a hillside. I don't like the way they have let deer become a major problem though and I'd like to see them mandated to manage their deer populations more responsibly.

If population loss is a problem then I'd suggest building more affordable housing. Government already has the tools it needs to do this and there are already examples of schemes like this where you cannot buy one of the houses unless you commit to living in the area.

Jim Fraser - the land isn't good enough for anything very productive in the Highlands. You seem to disagree though, what are we all missing? What productive use for peat bogs and rocks could be exploited? Also, by "independence for the Highlands", are you seriously suggesting that the Highlands could essentially go it alone? The cost of infrastructure and general running costs on a per-person basis make that completely unviable.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Highland Council would need to be a major player in changing how the area is managed. Right now (and even before covid) they are on their knees and I get the impression they are heading for a major crisis. I don't know if there's a will for that kind of change and there certainly isn't the capacity. Based on current form, even if the resources were made available by the Scottish government HC would probably squander them all on a team of people at head office to advise and generate press releases about the wonderful things they're doing whilst nothing actually happened on the ground.

In reply to facet:

Still much truth in the old joke: 'welcome to the Highlands. We're closed.'

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Great article apply the same to Snowdonia, the Lake District and Peak District and you have my backing. 

In general there are a few factors at play which are common to all National Parks on the UK. Planning permission is much more restrictive, small business owners find it impossibly expensive, and the prospect of bringing greater profit or jobs to a rural economy is normally ignored. Local authorities often do not help the matter by failing to provide adequate access or parking, this negatively impacts communities in rural areas as their single track roads get jammed. Finally, campsite legislation has changed pushing up prices and excluding campervans from many sites, many have closed their doors all together. Appropriate waste disposal and parking is lacking due to the first two points.

Rural infrastructure across the UK is appalling; broadband, parking, and vehicular access for tourism and commuting. Therefore all our rural communities struggle compared to our alpine counterparts. Italy has a famously corrupt governmental system in their Alpine areas yet still manages these areas better than we manage our rural areas... Surely we can do better. 

In reply to JohnBson:

Some uk national parks employ more well meaning (but not necessarily appropriately qualified) people running pet projects than they can afford. They balance their books through excessive charges for toilets, car parks etc.. this not only hinders the locals just trying to get out locally, but also tourists on a budget. Obviously if you down size from London buying your £0.5m grasmere cottage, these costs are within budget. 

In reply to summo:

I did, though I might not be making it clear. OK its - slightly - off the topic of the thread but if you are talking about a country's ability to lever money to achieve what it wants; I'm going to suggest that is core to the argument.

Scotland currently might have all the devolved power it likes but if a country's productive capacity is capped by finite funds, it will not fulfil that capacity. This parallels the inability of Highland Council to get anything meaningful done.

We have a Westminster that put ideology first. It pursued austerity in the belief that the issuer of pounds, themselves, had to balance their books by cutting back on money circulating in the economy; deficit.

Everyone spent the last 10 years watching the ensuing car crash, but Westminster seem unable or willing to realise that their spending constraints are entirely different from Scot/Welsh Gov, councils, or anyone else. Sure we're not specifically talking economics (this could go on a bit) but we kind of are.

In light of all of that, I'm not surprised Scot Gov or Highland Council struggle to get much done about the Highlands, the land problem, the roads, services, toilets, you name it. I'll be honest with you, I do think a Scottish Government with control of their own currency will have a better shot at resolving these issues.

Once again, whether that's a good or bad thing depends on your point of view.

Ah my profile is out of date. I'm 29. 

You can do better than that.

In reply to kwoods:

If Scotland can't do it with £2k per capita/yr more than England from the treasury what hope is there for elsewhere.

I still don't see what will be better just because Scotland is independent. It only sounds like it's another thing to blame London for when 99% of it relates to devolved powers.

Thatcher lost power the year before you were born, there have been 5 PMs since... I think if folk weren't happy with some of her measures they've had a few weeks to reverse them.

As said private ownership in Scotland isn't vastly different to Scandinavia, it's the legislation around and population viewpoint that differs. Obviously this doesn't tie in with the evil westmonster mantra. 

In reply to kwoods:

This idea you can just spend what you want if you are a currency issuer is absurd.  You can't create value by fiat.  Sure you can borrow against future economic activity, and the two are coupled, but there needs to be some realism or you just get inflation.

In reply to summo:

Pedant here: I’m 29, and Thatcher was prime minster for 50 days of my life having lost power in November 1990. That said, does it matter whether or not you were alive at the time? Reading is a thing... I definitely wasn’t alive when Churchill was PM for example, but am magically aware of what he got up to and hence an able to form an opinion. 

In reply to ianstevens:

I'd agree entirely, but that's not the same as writing in the style that many do as though they were living through Thatchers era as an adult. Much like the students dancing in George Square when she died. I may have jumped the gun slightly as coming from a north east pit village it really grips my $hit the number of people in their 40s and 50s who blame Thatcher for their inability to get a grip of their own lives because they are too F***ing lazy themselves. (Rant over).

I don't think Thatcher convinced anyone government budgets were like a household as he suggested either. Anyone in that era and the 70s would be fully aware of government debt and crazy interest rates. If anything it was Brown when he kindly ended boom and bust for us, that suggested endless borrowing was ok, as infinite greater growth would out pace it. 

Toilets and bins, plus maintenance needed - agreed

No fires - agreed

Dusk till dawn at roadside - may just push the NEDs it out of sight, though I would support.

Education - agreed

Campervan facilities - This is where it comes partly to land ownership (Large estates and crofting tenures).  Communities have no ownership of the land around them to make halting points on village outskirts and a lot the highland is bog and rock which is expensive to shift, which communities can't afford to do. While I'm critical to poor van behaviour, I do think vans are part of the Tourist mix. Part of the problem the Highlands has is the a feast and famine cycle, which is why the NC500 and Skye booms have been stupid, economically the Highland needs a longer season not a bigger glut, which is predominantly whats happened, and created well documented problems.

Vans can/could help extend the season allowing business to stay open providing longer more secure employment.  There is probably demand that would allow several key campsites to stay open all year if they had for example drying rooms, to encourage vans in winter. However as vans are dominantly not using them it becomes a chicken and egg situation. In turn nearby restaurants and pubs and cafes could stay open (albeit reduced hours) and some tourist businesses might be able to operate a few days a week.

Many larger spaces we do have are no where near communities which might benefit. Hence if we want van tourism to economically contribute in the shoulder seasons we come back to costly shifting bog and rock, then comes the problem will the vans use them as the views will probably not be as good.......most vans come for the views in Scotland. In the Alps there are hosts of historic sites, catherdrals, churches, towns and markets. Alongside ski-lift infrastructure which draws vans to the towns and villages, and good low level to high level path networks that also start at the towns and villages and go between them forming loops (again due to land ownership there are blockers to creating these paths). By contrast in Scotland our rural settlements have very little to encourage vans to park up on the outskirts and walk in. So the expense and effort could well be wasted money.

The article is wrong to suggest we currently have capacity for the numbers, and is wrong to suggest only a handful of roads badly are affected, and that there are enough spaces. There are clearly problems during the 'feast'.

The crux though is many communities are so fed up of tourists by September, they long for a break. 

In reply to summo:

Again, I'd agree with you here (what is the madness, agreement on UKC?!?!) that lived vs researched experiences should be presented in a different style. I can however empathise with those "celebrating" her death*; from what I can gather Thatcherite policy still hangs over some elements of society whether or not you were around for its instigation. For example, the idea that the welfare state removes drive amongst some to work, and the focus on individualism, which some may well not be fans of. 

Having moved up to the North East in the last year, I know the sort you mean. My limited perception here is that of scapegoating a widely-despised figure with power. 

See here I need to do some reading - and the lived experience has that bit more value in the extent that you can easily recall it and include some wider perceptions at the time which may be harder to establish in the literature. I'd have been about 8 when Blair/Brown first came to power and had little interest in politics until the coalition. 

*to an extent, as I find celebrating an actual death a rather horrid concept, but would rather celebrate the "death" of an ideology I disagreed with. Sometimes this may be represented by a physical death, but in this case the exact opposite seems to be true.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Those involved in tourism are happy to promote the nc500 for example, so they need to fund any facilities either directly or indirectly. It's not beyond the wit of man to have a small layby area anywhere practical, provide a couple of toilets, cold water tap, decent litter facilties and perhaps a place to empty chemical toilets; in return motor home owners can be encouraged by pay a modest amount. 

Or even a booklet promoting the route, maps of things to do, discount vouchers for local attractions etc.. perhaps sell it for £10-20 with a big emphasis that it's paying for toilets, litter bins etc. 

I think it just needs creative thinking, rather than local councils just doing the same old. 

In reply to summo:

Totally agree... it's just that it needs the council +/- government to pull it together and there's nothing happening from their end sadly! Small business's making big money from the NC500 won't organise together to do this, besides they would need buy in from the council etc to complete the much needed, yet simple facilities you mention. All the best

In reply to summo:

I agree with your point on pet projects, there are many illogical investments in rural areas. However I have come to agree with parking charges as I have seen first hand the benefits to small local business that reasonable charges combined with reduction in entry fee to an attraction deliver when demand outstrips number of spaces in an AONB.

In reply to JohnBson:

The problem is most national parks (staff, planning committees and volunteers) think they are running some natural nature reserve like Yellowstone or Yosemite, but in reality most UK parks are industrial heritage with large populations who have to try to live and work within them. 

Oh f#ck, really?

Kind of like Iceland or Norway then? That's a shame.