Talk:National parks of Scotland

Scotland High‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Landscapes without much integrity?"

There's a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a National Park here. The debate about the merits and demerits of ancient wholly natural landscapes is a very important one; but nobody serious is suggesting that anywhere (other than a few small fragments and islands) in the UK is natural, nor that it should be preserved as such. National Parks and AONBs in the UK are natural landscapes in which human involvement is an integral part. Human intervention over the last 10,000 years in much of the landscape has had a profound effect on the way the landscape looks and works: continuing involvement is often needed to maintain it. Naturenet 09:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I really don't like the following paragraph:

"Conservationists argue that this would not be so bad if the landscapes had been historically managed with sympathy for indigenous flora and fauna, but like many areas of the Scottish Highlands, historical deforestation, overgrazing by sheep and deer, and extensive 20th century aforestation with non-native tree species (particularly conifers) have resulted in landscapes without much integrity. It is hoped that the new national parks will address these issues; however, concerns remain that tourism interests and developers may have more influence than conservationists in the management of the new park areas."

...and I'm thinking of deleting it, rather than attempt to rewrite it. To me it adds little to the article but promulgates a view that I don't agree with (for the reasons above). However, as I'm partisan on this issue I'd like some other opinions before I just rip it out. Anyone got any views? Naturenet 15:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it was there before I expanded the page a little this weekend, and I have no great desire to keep it; however, I think it is worth having something about how there are no pristine areas in the UK, but there are different styles of management (planting monocultures of non-native conifers being a particularly egregious example), and the needs of conservation can conflict with the requirements of tourists, etc (like in the National parks of England and Wales article). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you're quite right, and, indeed, as you will be aware I contributed parts of that text you mention in National parks of England and Wales. We've both had a small go at this page but neither of us has really had a go at that last paragraph, which now stands out in contrast to the rest of the article. I think this issues there are no different to those in Scotland, but the original author of this article obviously had strong views. I think the whole thing is bound up with the general confusion about UK national parks when seen from other countries, and so I'd like to just remove the offending paragraph – which I view as beyond salvation – and replace it with something much more like the one we have on National parks of England and Wales. Naturenet 12:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've redone it now, leaving the point that the landscapes are not natural, but removing the judgement as to whether or not this is a good thing. Naturenet 11:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See IUCN-UK project "Putting wildlife on the map", the purpose of which is to identify potential areas for classification in the higher IUCN categories. It is not the case that nobody is serious about safeguarding such areas.

Merge/Demerge?

It strikes me that we would really be best off with a single National parks of Great Britain or National parks of the United Kingdom article. The roles and issues of national parks are identical in both areas. Grinner 13:14, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

It was suggested on WP:FAC (where National parks of England and Wales is currently doing rather well) but the rationale for keeping Scotland and Northern Ireland separate is that they have their legislation and their own specific issues. I have some sympathy with the proposel to merge them, since the legal form and many of the issues are actually very similar (I think I even suggested merging them when England and Wales were on WP:UKCOTW). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal to merge. The three separate areas have significant enough differences to justify different articles. I particularly have in mind here the historical context of the formation of the English and Welsh parks, as opposed to the Scottish ones (and the yet-to-be-completed debate about Northern Ireland). Even if the result is the same (which is arguable) the process was very different, and the social and political context were worlds apart. There are issues facing parks in general, and issues that differ across all parks, perhaps with a grouping of issues around upland management, but otherwise country divisions seem to be helpful. There are particualar issues facing Scottish parks - such as the Cairngorms railway debate - which can be usefully added to the article about that country, but are sufficiently different to the other countries to be worth keeping separate, IMHO. Naturenet 14:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Map please

I would be great if someone could do a map of the parks. Ravenhurst 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]