Thanks for that link - relatively short read, hinting at the multifaceted nature of doing something like this — and it’s not totally obvious what’s selfish and what’s altruistic.

With beavers, the case (aside from joy of re-wilding) was clear regarding their effect on up-stream water retention. Beavers are net beneficial in uplands, preventing flooding, at a cost of marginal land usage loss near the stream due to ponds, and less aggressive but nonetheless pretty wet flooding when beaver dams break.

With predators, I am unsure what the (quasi?)economic argument would be. I think the environment is healthier with a population of top predators. its possible it would stop rampant deer problems, they eat the living bejesus out of young trees. But the young trees in question are mostly monoculture, cropped trees. We're not talking native forest here mostly, the caledonian forest is a tiny percentage of the plantation state of most of scotlands forestry. (or was, I left in the 80s. I am probably out of date here)

A lot of 'beautiful' landscape is totally manufactured, including grouse moors. The de-forestation of britain across the industrial revolution, and then the highland clearances to replace upland small tenant farming with sheep, was about replacing the landscape with .. other landscape. Forestry Commission plantations are a bit soulless, but Edinburgh Universty has been running forestry management degrees since around 1917, and the need for timber in WWI. A lot of "restore nature" is really "put it back the way my grandfather had it" not "put it back to the doggerland days"

I like wolves and lynx and beavers and storks. Lots of tourists like them. I don't know (absent CAP market support to farmers) which is more net beneficial longterm, the destructive farming patterns, or the tourism. Both have up and downsides.

Non-british resident. I could get "what do you know" answers back. They'd be fair.