Scotland's rural areas will provide some of the most controversial challenges for the new Parliament. Gordon King, head of surveyor's DM Hall's country department, says MSPs have a real opportunity to change the way we own, manage, enjoy, develop or sell land

THIS spring up to 250,000 country people, Scots among them, exercised their right to roam over the city of London. Though the Government promised a U-turn, the movement in the South has grown legs of its own, and marches onward and forward.

It's a different story for the marchers from Scotland who have a long road yet to travel towards rural harmony. And - particularly for the landowner - there are many challenges along the way. The new Parliament presents a real opportunity for change in the way we own, manage, enjoy, develop or sell land in Scotland.

Land reformers have already been rewarded with the Land Reform Policy Group review. The anti-field sports lobby, environmental campaigners, rural housing pressure groups, food safety campaigners and others are (in many cases rightly) having their causes recognised though not yet acted upon.

For those who own land in Scotland, however, it's a different matter. Will their view be heard and understood? Will their Parliament have a department of rural affairs - as is possible in England - to listen to them?

What are the most pressing issues?

For some, the answer is to go where others fear to tread: over their own hills, mountains, pastures, fields and shores. This is where they will find the Ramblers Association and other public access groups preparing to put their case to the new residents of Holyrood. The public access movement hasbeen arguing its case for over 100 years, but only the present Government has promised substantial action.

In England and Wales, the Minister for the Environment has made it clear that if his recent consultation initiative doesn't lead to change toward voluntary access agreements, he will turn them into a statutory right.

In 1996 the Country Landowners Association calculated that 0.59% of the land area in England and Wales was covered by voluntary agreements. It may be difficult to appease the lobbyists, and a statutory right could be looming.

In Scotland, the culture and the law are, always, different. Historically, Scots have a sense of communal interest (perhaps misplaced) in ''the land''. There is less of the possessiveness shown by landowners south of the Border, driven by the greater population density and fear of being outnumbered and threatened.

Our law of trespass (it does exist in Scots law) is different. It doesn't permit forcible ejection of the trespasser unless he or she is clearly intent on violence or damage. The desire, or need, of Scottish landowners to keep intruders off their land may be quite a recent development.

The exclusion is visible in various ways: the signboards, the management style, and the developing attitude of the landowner. Yet there is still a chance of avoiding the sort of statutory intervention which may happen in England and Wales. Modifications in management and attitude would help.

The reality in Scotland is that it isn't the walker who needs statutory protection. Owners should have the right of permanently excluding people from sensitive areas (or temporarily, during sensitive times) and a right of action for punitive damages against anyone damaging their property or exceeding their rights.

Owners might reasonably seek protection from liability, and the right to assume people are aware of access restrictions. They might possibly expect to have the right to use reasonable persuasion to encourage people to leave sensitive areas, or during sensitive times.

But protection like this carries a purchase price. Landowners must show a willingness to welcome the public, and to cater for and encourage their understanding of the countryside and the land.

There may be more challenges to come with this Parliament, and the landowner may need their understanding.