Private landowners related to the former Conservative Scottish Secretary, Alister Jack, have been accused of covertly backing a campaign to block plans for a new national park in Galloway.
The Ferret can reveal that the website for the No Galloway National Park campaign gave the email of Jack’s brother James, who owns seven estates, for queries about privacy policy. But the email address was altered after we started making inquiries earlier this month.
The campaign website was also made by an IT company run by Jack’s daughter, Emily, and her husband, Baron Sweerts De Landas Wyborgh, who owns an estate in Galloway.
Pro-national park campaigners claimed that support from Jack’s family had been “concealed”. They demanded to know who was funding the no campaign, including the hiring of a hard-hitting PR company.
The Scottish Greens argued that a park could bring £10m a year into the area. It would be “very disappointing” if this was stopped by a campaign that “appears to be anything but grassroots”, they said.
No Galloway National Park, however, insisted that it was “a grassroots movement which is funded by private donations”. It had attracted support from “all parts” of Dumfries and Galloway, a spokesperson said.
Scotland’s first two national parks were established at Loch Lomond and The Trossachs in 2002 and the Cairngorms in 2003. In July 2024 the Scottish Government proposed Galloway as the nation’s third, and a public consultation is now underway and due to end on 14 February 2025.
The park’s aim would be “to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area”. The government’s wildlife agency, NatureScot, has suggested it could cover three different areas across Galloway and South Ayrshire, ranging from 1,559 to 4,177 square kilometres.
PR firm hired to attack national park plan
A park was initially proposed in 2017 by the Galloway National Park Association, which was set up by local people. But it is opposed by the National Farmers Union in Scotland and Scottish Land and Estates, which represents landowners.
The No Galloway National Park (NGNP) campaign was launched at a public meeting in Gatehouse of Fleet on 6 August 2024. Fronted by two local people, Denise Brownlee and Liz Hitschmann, it hired the Glasgow and London-based PR agency, Media House International, headed by former Scottish Sun editor, Jack Irvine.
Media House has since issued a series of high-profile news releases on behalf of NGNP attacking the proposed park. One, on 3 October 2024, accused pro-park campaigners of “dirty tricks” by tearing down banners and blocking social media messages.
According to the NGNP website, the group is composed of “passionate locals who care about Galloway and understand our community’s needs”. It does not say where its funding comes from.
It adds: “We do not believe a national park is the way to support sustainable development. We are from different backgrounds, but we are not political activists and have never campaigned on an issue like this before.”
Until December 2024, the NGNP website’s privacy policy page referred any queries to “james@dornells.com”. This is the email address of James Pringle Jack, the brother of Alister Jack.
The email address was deleted from the website after The Ferret first asked about the hiring of Media House. It was replaced by the campaign’s generic address, info@nogallowaynationalpark.org.
According to Who Owns Scotland, James Jack is the owner of three large estates near Castle Douglas in Dumfries and Galloway: the 734-hectare Dornells estate, the 916-hectare Hensol estate and 273-hectare Overlaggan Farm. He owns four other commercial forestry and farming estates in Ayrshire, Kintyre and Skye.
He is also a member of the limited liability partnership which owns the 4,567-hectare Annandale Estate, near Moffat. The Ferret reported in January 2024 that the estate had breached the rules for rural subsidies 17 times between 2018 and 2022.
The NGNP website also says that it was built by Corona IT, a digital support company based in Dumfries and Carlisle. According to Companies House, the company’s directors are Alister Jack’s daughter, Emily Ann Jack, and her husband, Dutch aristocrat, Arthur Andre Adolphe, Baron Sweerts De Landas Wyborgh, who owns Auchenbrack estate in Galloway.
Action to Protect Rural Scotland said it was “concerning” to learn that NGNP was backed by landowners related to Alister Jack. “This support appears to be concealed, and not made clear on the website or by the no campaign,” said the group’s director, Dr Kat Jones.
“To find that this campaign, which bills itself as grassroots, is being backed by major landowning interests, puts the whole campaign in a new context and begs the question of where it is finding the money to employ a major PR company who are evidently doing a huge amount of work on their behalf.”
Jones demanded more transparency. “The owners of estates in the south of Scotland or, indeed, anywhere else, are entitled to make their views on a national park for Galloway known,” she told The Ferret.
“However the public deserve that this is done in a transparent way, and, where messaging and campaigning is funded by major landowning interests, this should be made clear.”
Campaign against national park ‘anything but grassroots’
According to the Galloway National Park Association, there was “no hint” of a campaign against a national park for the first seven years the issue was being discussed in Galloway.
“Then, within days of the minister’s announcement, a fully fledged no campaign emerged, complete with social media then professionally designed website, brand management and abundant resources,” said the association’s chair, Rob Lucas.
He also suspected that “much of the drive and funding for the no campaign is from outside the potential national park area.” The NGNP Facebook page includes messages from opponents of national parks in Loch Lomond, the Cairngorms and elsewhere.
According to the Scottish Greens, a national park would bring £10m a year into Galloway, creating jobs and developing infrastructure for locals and tourists. “The campaign to bring a national park to Galloway was led by volunteers in the area,” said party co-leader and former minister, Lorna Slater MSP.
“It would be very disappointing if this opportunity for the future of Galloway was missed, because of the work of a no campaign that hasn’t been clear about its funding and appears to be anything but grassroots.”
Media House provided The Ferret with a statement from No Galloway National Park. “The No Galloway National Park campaign is a grassroots movement which is funded by private donation and has attracted a wide range of support from all parts of Dumfries and Galloway,” said a spokesperson.
It declined to say more. James Jack, Emily Jack, Baron Sweerts De Landas Wyborgh and Alister Jack did not respond to requests to comment.
Get all our latest updates with the Ferret Underground, our free newsletter. Sign up for free stories every week, an invite to our exclusive Facebook group, and a monthly behind-the-scenes newsletter.
Cover image thanks to iStock/creativenaturemedia.
In response to this article I’d like to request The Ferret carries out some similar background checks on individuals involved in the GNPA who also present themselves as a ‘grassroots’ organisation. Such an examination would reveal some ‘interesting’ facts about trustees of that organisation, and their supporters, APRS and SCNP, some of whom have played musical chairs in board level roles within environmental and nature organisations and networks in Scotland for many years. One former GNPA trustee was a Director at Scottish Natural Heritage for several years. They are currently Chair of Action for Protection of Rural Scotland, Vice Chair of the Scottish Campaign for National Parks and, since the beginning of this year, Chair of Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere. The timing of their ‘retirement’ from GNPA and comments made by the GNPA President at that time are particularly illuminating, ‘His work with the Scottish Campaign for National Parks will continue to be of benefit as the competition for a new park moves forward.’ Only a few months later this individual became a member of the NatureScot National Parks Stakeholder Advisory Group. Could this lead to a suggestion that insider knowledge and influence helped to develop and promote the GNPA bid? What seems clear is that this group are now using misinformation and smears to attack those who oppose their plans for a Park and to influence the ‘consultation’ process. It is no secret that some of those involved in the No campaign are landowners, and very many more are ordinary residents. They represent a vast spectrum of social position and political views. What they share are significant concerns about what is proposed. Perhaps in the interests of balance the Ferret might explore some of those concerns and offer an opportunity to look at both side of this debate?
Mad anti park boomers who are mostly not from the area (at least the 2 ring leaders aren’t) loosing their minds over the fact that this article has pointed out they have aligned themselves with mega tories (Jacks, Blacketts, Farmers).
I am a native and resident of Galloway. I, in the same way as any other person with a legitimate interest in this area, have a sovereign right to give an opinion, or support, any cause that affects my quality of life or that of others in my community. That you think some people you apparently disapprove of should be deprived of that right is bizarre. Indeed, since I don’t believe we live in a State where freedom of speech is muzzled and legal objection is forbidden, I am very worried by the tone of your article. This is not a dictatorship yet!
I might also point out, connected to the above, that the GNPA is bombarding Social Media and the Press with fabulous imaginings of what this proposed Park is going to achieve as well as the occasional nice event taking place in another park somewhere in the UK, or even abroad. For a while, we could think about these posts and offer pertinent responses to them, taking account of research into the other two Scottish parks. However, the GNPA has now turned off any comments to make sure only their fantasies are seen – another move to silencing the Galloway people who oppose them and a move towards absolute authority. This should be unacceptable in the eyes of any believer in freedom of expression.
This Proposed Park has been planned mostly under the radar for a long time. Presumably those preparing it were also funded by somebody. Since you have denounced one or two individuals for supporting the NO campaign, which is their absolute right, you must therefore publish the sources of funding for the GNPA. You will, of course, be aware that this proposal has the backing of the State in Holyrood, amongst others, who hold the purse strings and have also been nursing an ambition for a third park since the Green party included it in their support for the minority SNP. Those who are against the park have had a very short few months to realise what is planned for us and organise to resist it. Supporters of the NO campaign come from all walks of life and very many have given donations. If you condemn some, you condemn all.
I look forward to a new tourist season in 2025 when the 60 odd volunteers who now run our Tourist Information Office return to work. We see thousands every year, many of whom come to Galloway to escape from the traffic of their busy local National Park. We want to see our businesses, including tourism, flourishing at the steady rate of development we have already seen, particularly since Covid. We want our Government to spend its money helping to upgrade our infrastructure to support local enterprise, of which there is a wealth. We do not want the flood of visitors that would be attracted by the Park designation and we do not want to be governed by a Park Authority. Galloway has always had an independent spirit. It is among the most productive producers of food in the country. We want to preserve our natural environment, our hills and beaches, our meadows and livestock within the free environment we currently enjoy. We will change and evolve as we always have, but we will do it without the trammels of an expensive Board of Directors or Trustees or Governors.
Please go away and read again what you have said in your article. Think about the implications of depriving people of their rights whether or not you agree with them.
So what are you saying? That if you’re a landowner you shouldn’t have a say in what happens to….your land? That’s like saying if you’re a business owner you should have no say in what happens to your business, or a houseowner should have no say in what happens to his house. And if one of your relations happens to have been an elected representative for the area you and they live in, you should have no say either? So who DOES get to have a say? Just those in favour of yet another layer of taxpayer-funded, unnecessary, expensive bureaucracy? Or just those likely to or hoping to be part of that layer? This is an astonishingly one-sided and unbalanced article, shame on you. Why haven’t you brought out any of the facts and dubious connections listed in detail by Ann Purvis above? All of which are far more pertinent than a landowner who has nothing to gain from this vanity project having an opinion as is his right ?Who is “the ferret” anyway? Are they related to any of the people in the GNPA, I wonder?