I'd be okay with that. I know the A-Wing scale argument is a tired one. I think FFG's approach is defensible and I won't fault them for that. But unless the A-Wing pilots' heads are three feet across, that is not a 30-foot long ship.
When you look at photos of all the LF models in the same room, I can see what's going on. There's a practical approach to their construction. They were built in a way that made sense for filming purposes. You know what the craft don't have? A unifying metric. They're all kitbashed, with the intention of the actual film experience to provide scale. In reality, the Tantive IV model is only a few inches longer than the Falcon. The Nebulon-B is not much longer than that. That suggests that LFL approached the scale in a somewhat arbitrary fashion. I think it's likely that someone—probably not the person who built the models—looked at all the starfighter film models and assumed they were constructed to scale, and just made up the numbers from there.
It can be argued that FFG did everything they could and are using official data—I won't contest that at all. But I will contest that LF used arbitrary and sometimes-meaningless numbers to provide to their partners. The films themselves are canon, not the measurement of the film models. And there is more than enough evidence in them to suggest the A-Wing is not 9.6 meters long. Same for the TIEs, to a lesser extent.
That being said, since we're already dealing with a sort of sliding scale with TIEs and A-Wings, and I think it's been handled to the best of FFG's ability, I wouldn't mind some scale flubs with capital ships as long as it remained convincing enough. The scale on the CR-90 is reasonable—but a 3 or 4 foot star destroyer would be ridiculous. If we can stick with frigates and freighters, and keep the focus on starfighter squadrons, I think that will be good.
I think an entirely new game at a capital ship scale would be welcome in the future.