[cogman10]

> without large areas of true wilderness

Depends on your definition of large. You'd probably be shocked at just how much wilderness is in the UK.

Don't get me wrong, just about every farmable piece of land is growing food. However, you might be shocked at the presence of forests and camping grounds still to this day.

Either way, the right to roam in the UK is something I wish we had in the US. There are more than a few lakes, for example, that can no longer be accessed because they've been encircled by private land owners turning the lakes effectively private. Cutting off access to waterways and forests to turn them into playgrounds for the rich is gross.

    Well, as I was walking, I saw a sign there
    And on the sign it said "No Trespassing"
    But on the other side it didn't say nothing
    That side was made for you and me!

[JdeBP]

The U.K. does not have a right to roam. It's a sore point for ramblers et al.. The legal situation differs between England and Wales, and Scotland; and campaigners would like the Scottish right to be also available in England and Wales, which largely only has what is tantamount to a codification of what the common law situation used to be back in the 20th century.

And indeed in Northern Ireland, which has the most restrictive laws in the U.K. in this respect, even more restrictive than the current situation in England and Wales.

[hatthew]

I was watching a video of someone walking through rural england, and he kept talking about the "great forest" up ahead that was a unique and massive landmark. When he eventually got to it, it was the sort of bog-standard woods that everybody on the US east coast visits to walk their dog.

[shmageggy]

> You'd probably be shocked at just how much wilderness is in the UK.

You're right. I was shocked at just how little there is. If one's definition of large is more than a few square km, there's virtually none, for any sensible definition of wilderness, at least south of the Cairngorns.