THE Scottish Tourist Board has recommended that its 32 area boards be
cut to seven regional boards as part of a plan to restructure the highly
fragmented tourism industry.
The board is understood to have put forward three options -- for 15,
10 or seven area boards -- and is recommending seven as the ideal
number.
The prospect of only seven ATBs has been greeted with horror by some
boards, who have suggested that they would rather act independently than
be part of an area board they see as unwieldy and destructive.
Opponents of the proposal have predicted falling membership, lost
revenue, and job losses.
Scottish Secretary Ian Lang has already indicated that he would find
it difficult to understand why Scotland should need more ATBs than
England -- which has 10 -- and he is believed to be trying to match the
new ATB map with local authority reorganisation.
A spokeswoman for the Scottish Office said yesterday the proposals
were being considered and an announcement would be made in due course.
The new ATB structure is expected to be in place by the spring of 1995
and most expect a final decision on the shape and size by early next
year.
STB chairman Mr Ian Grant said the proposals were ''a private matter
between ourselves and the Scottish Office''.
Strong opposition to the plan came last night from Mr Josh Gourlay,
Orkney's director of tourism. ''It is an absolute, utter, totally
unbelievable disaster and I view it with great incredulity,'' he said.
''I find it an incredible recommendation because we certainly have a
different tourism product from the rest of Scotland, in fact from most
of the island areas. Scotland in the main is a touring destination and
we are very much a resort destination but it is also a fact that we are
very much different.
''In a sense, tartan land and kilts stop at the Pentland Firth. There
are cultural differences, historic differences, economic differences,
and political differences. I think that essentially we try and get the
AB markets to a larger extent than Scotland does as a whole,'' he said.
Amalgamation into a tourist area stretching from Fort William to the
Western Isles and up to Shetland would mean a substantial reduction in
the number of trade members in Orkney, and a diminished economic value
to the tourism industry on the island, he warned.
''I could recommend four area tourist boards -- the three island
authorities and Scotland,'' he said.
However, reaction to the new structure, which represents half of the
STB's earlier proposal of 15 ATBs, has been positive in some quarters.
Mr Gordon Henry, chief executive of Grampian, Highland and Aberdeen
Tourist Board, said the five ATBs in his area were already operating as
a voluntary consortium. The recommendation left his area much as it is
already and he was ''delighted'' with that.
Mrs Elizabeth Dunlop, chairman of St Andrews and North-east Fife
Tourist Board, described the Tayside merger as ''an opportunity we can
grasp and build on''. She said: ''If we can all work together the sky is
the limit. I am positive we can reach more people more easily.''
Mr James Fraser, director of Loch Lomond, Stirling, and Trossachs
Tourist Board, said the majority of members had favoured a link with
Argyll because it meant that the whole of Loch Lomond was under the
umbrella of one tourism unit.
Other board directors were less enthusiastic, especially those whose
rural territory was being merged with a city. Mr Scott Armstrong, Clyde
Valley director of tourism, said he had hoped that Lanarkshire would be
left as a separate entity.
''This area has a population of half a million, and is sufficiently
different from Glasgow to be marketed separately. We can work with the
Glasgow Tourist Board in certain initiatives but marketing a city
product requires a different format than marketing Lanarkshire,'' he
said.
His views were broadly echoed by Mr Riddell Graham, director of the
Scottish Borders Tourist Board. He was involved in drafting the ATBs'
own joint submission to the Scottish Office, which largely coincided
with the STB's original proposal of 15 ATBs. He said his own tourist
board's views had clearly been ignored and questioned the purpose of the
STB's consultation process.
''My committee will be very disappointed at a merger of the Borders
and Edinburgh. There may have to be some kind of amalgamation but the
link with Edinburgh was never ever in the field. Edinburgh made it very
clear that it was a unique unit, a capital city, and quite different
from the hinterland.
''My main concern is the likely reaction from local authorities and
the trade. One of the reasons we have got thousands of trade members
supporting tourism in Scotland is because they can identify with a
locally-based organisation. That would still have been true at 15.''
Dr Roger Carter, chief executive of Edinburgh Tourist Board, said:
''We see some disadvantages in being linked administratively to the
surrounding area. The majority of our visitors come for conferences or
from overseas. Visitors tend to come to Edinburgh for this very specific
product, and I think one is concerned about a potential loss of focus.''
Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board appeared determined to retain its
independence from neighbouring Ayrshire. Mr Douglas Ritchie, tourism
director, said: ''Dumfries and Galloway will be one unitary authority,
we have one local enterprise board, one health authority serving us, and
there should be one tourist board.''
Mr Charles Currie, the Isle of Arran's tourism manager, said he felt
the island could merge with Ayrshire, with its largely coastal tourism
product, but that inclusion with Dumfries and Galloway would ''dilute
the product with something completely different''. He warned that if the
purpose of the STB's restructuring was to increase private sector
funding, it would not achieve this by alienating trade members.
If the 32 ATBs at present are reduced to less than a quarter of that
number, a question mark will inevitably hang over tourism jobs in
Scotland.
The areas covered by the proposed boards:
1. Orkney, Shetland, Ross and Cromarty, Caithness and Sutherland,
Skye, Western Isles, Aviemore area, Inverness, Fort William.
2. Moray, Banff and Buchan, Gordon, Aberdeen, and Kincardine and
Deeside.
3. Perthshire, Angus, Dundee, and Fife.
4. Argyll, Cowal and Bute, and Loch Lomond, Stirling and Trossachs.
5. Glasgow and Clyde Valley.
6. Edinburgh, East Midlothian, Forth Valley, and Borders.
7. Ayrshire and Arran, and Dumfries and Galloway.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article