This is an interesting point. If the land is privately owned, will it be confiscated? What would be done with it if it weren’t shooting estates?
Lesley Riddoch’s Blossom has lots of good stuff on this. Ending primogeniture would be a very good start, that would naturally lead to the breakup of the big estates. Making community buyouts easier would help. Relaxing planning laws would make a big difference. Forests could be community owned instead of the FC, meaning locals get a lot more say in things. We could have a much more outdoorsy culture – Scotland has around 300 forest huts (mostly at Carbeth), Norway has 300,000.
It’s not about massive development, it’s about meaning locals can build houses for themselves, it’s about small communities being able to build a football pitch without having to negotiate for years with the local laird. It’s about people actually having a connection to the land instead of it being an investment vehicle for offshore owners. In Scandinavia, fishing, hunting and sailing are things that most people do, here they’re things really only for the wealthiest. That doesn’t have to be the case, but the reason for it is that so much land is locked up away from ordinary people.