Something like 600,000 acres – a third of the 1.8 million held by the Forestry Commission – have been identified for a sale that may need changes to laws dating back to the Magna Carta to make it possible.

It seems to be envisaged that much of this would be bought by developers who would then be able to clear the trees for holiday-cum-adventure-activities facilities and golf courses.

Losing the contemplated percentage of forest would also be a direct hit on carbon emission control targets as forests are a carbon sink.

Ben Goldsmith, the financier son of the late Jimmy Goldsmith and who runs a charitable foundation named after his father and targeted on forest protection, has said that the UK is a long way back from the position of other European nations in making best use of its forest resources, says a report on the For Argyll website. Because of the UK's need for a source of sustainable biofuels, Mr Goldsmith is questioning the wisdom of the sell-off.

Argyll, which holds around 40% of Scotland's forest estate, witnessed one of the most dishonest – but successful – pieces of political chicanery in the lifetime of the p0resent Scottish Government when then Environment Minister, Michael Russell MSP, planned to lease 25% of the forest estate for 75 years.

The proposal was aimed at raising money to combat climate change. It was for a lease not a sale. The sale was targeted on commercial forest harvesting interests and offered protection against the levelling developers England is now looking at. It was also of a quarter of the forest estate.

Yet the Liberal democrats in Argyll led an emotional campaign against the proposal, devoid of facts, fuelled by misinformation and frightening the electorate at a visceral level into believing that they were to lose forest and land. Now that party is part of a UK coalition government which proposes to offload a higher proportion – one third – of the forest estate outside Scotland; to offload it for good in a sale rather than a long term lease; and to countenance a consequent loss of forest to developers who would clear much of it to meet their leisure market needs.

Scotland is outside the remit of this proposal, since Forestry Commission Scotland's energetic response to devolution saw it become a department of the Scottish Government, but For Argyll points out that the hypocrisy of the Libdem's policy flipflop needs to be addressed.

According to Patrick Hennessy and Rebecca Lefort writing in the Telegraph, conservation groups have called on ministers to ensure that the public could still enjoy the landscape after the disposal, which will see some woodland areas given to community groups or charitable organisations.

However, large amounts of forests will be sold as the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) seeks to make massive budget savings as demanded in the UK Government's spending review. Defra was one of the worst-hit Whitehall departments under the Spending Review, with Ms Spelman losing around 30 per cent of her current £2.9 billion annual budget by 2015.

Whitehall sources say about a third of the land to be disposed of would be transferred to other ownership before the end of the period covered by the review, between 2011 and 2015, with the rest expected to go by 2020.

A source close to the department said: "We are looking to energise our forests by bringing in fresh ideas and investment, and by putting conservation in the hands of local communities."

The Forestry Commission, whose estate was valued in the 1990s at £2.5 billion, was a quango which was initially thought to be facing the axe as ministers drew up a list of arms-length bodies to be culled. However, when the final list was published in early October it was officially earmarked: "Retain and substantially reform – details of reform will be set out by Defra later in the autumn as part of the Government's strategic approach to forestry in England."

A spokesman for the National Trust said: "Potentially this is an opportunity. It would depend on which 50 per cent of land they sold off, if it is valuable in terms of nature, conservation and landscape, or of high commercial value in terms of logging.

"We will take a fairly pragmatic approach and look at each sale on a case by case basis, making sure the land goes to the appropriate organisations for the right sites, making sure the public can continue to enjoy the land."

Mark Avery, conservation director for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) said: "We would be quite relaxed about the idea of some sales, but would be unrelaxed if the wrong bits were up for sale like the New Forest, Forest of Dean or Sherwood Forest, which are incredibly valuable for wildlife and shouldn't be sold off. We would look very carefully at what was planned. It would be possible to sell 50 per cent if it was done in the right way."

Allan MacKenzie, secretary of the Forestry Commission Trade Unions, said: "We will oppose any land sale. Once we've sold it, it never comes back. Once it is sold, restrictions are placed on the land which means the public don't get the same access to the land and facilities that are provided by the public forest estate."

In 1992 John Major's Conservative government – also looking to save money in a recession – drew up plans to privatise the Forestry Commission's giant estate, which ranges from huge conifer plantations to small neighbourhood woodlands. Mr Major backed the sell- off which, it was hoped, would raise £1 billion. However it was later abandoned following a study by a group of senior civil servants, amid widespread public opposition.