THE public outcry to stop hydro power stations in Glen Etive was overwhelming ... overwhelmingly unwelcome, according to some locals.

Last week councillors gave the final go-ahead for controversial schemes in the valley, which is best known globally as the Highland scene of the James Bond movie Skyfall.

They did so despite a mass social media outcry to "save the glen" by stopping the developments.

That campaign is now facing a backlash from those who openly resent what they see as largely "outsiders" trying to hold back renewable energy and economic development.

There are just nine or so residents in the valley, but far more in neighbouring Glen Coe. There the local community council supported the hydro schemes, which are run-of-river projects rather than the more visually impactful dams previously built around the Highlands.

Glen Coe and Glen Etive community councillor Victoria Sutherland explained why. "There are people on social media and many powerful groups who vehemently oppose the developments and who all claimed to have a 'vested interest' in our glens but, for the most part, live far from here," she said.

"I would like them to consider the people who actually live and work here – all year round.

"We do not have the luxury of the services that people who live in urban areas have. The community benefit which these schemes generate will now enable us to invest in a few of the things that people who do not live in remote glens take for granted as their right."

Sutherland, who is based in Glen Coe, railed against those she sees as trying to preserve the Highlands as a pristine wild environment rather than what sees as a landscape already shaped by people.

Indeed Sutherland says the campaign itself – with its heavy use of stunning scenic photographs – will generate more interest in the glen, and attract more visitors than it can cope with. She cited locals – there are only around half a dozen homes in the glen – who face constant knocks on the door asking to use their toilets.

Sutherland continued: "Our mountains should not be regarded only as playgrounds for urban population – theirs to treat as they like. There has to be a balance.

"Ever-increasing footfall is the biggest danger to the wild places in Scotland and the world over, and the noise that has been generated over these hydro schemes will without a doubt result in a trebling of visitors to Glen Etive.

"Who is left to clear up the rubbish the campers and other visitors leave? There are no public toilets in Glen Etive and off the road the glen is littered with small piles of toilet paper covering up their messes.

"The people who live here do the clearing up because they love their glen and hate to see the mess that gets left. People are the problem we face, not hydro schemes."

Those opposed to the scheme – and they hope the Scottish Government will overturn the local decisions – share her concerns about visitor pollution, but they reject claims they are outsiders. Many social media voices may have have no link to hills and glens, but there is a Highland core to the protests, they say.

Campaigner David Lintern, of Save Glen Etive, admits debate has become fraught online. A mountain guide and writer from Kingussie, he regularly works in the glen.

Lintern said: "We're mindful of the folk in the glen, and we've tried over 20 times to get in touch with them, but feelings locally are running high and it's been difficult. We're hoping that may change next week with a meeting."

He added: "It's easy to assume that, because there are lots of people from all over the world expressing their love of the place, that we are not a local campaign. But 'Save Glen Etive' is a heartfelt response by ordinary people – some of whom are Highlanders too – to what we feel is an inappropriate development threat."

Conservationists tend not to oppose all hydro schemes but see stunning Glen Etive, one of the few wildernesses in Scotland that is relatively easy accessible, as unsuitable for any industrial work.

Lintern said: "It's really difficult – we appreciate that some that live in the glen themselves might not see that money and are troubled by tourism impacts, like littering, but that issue could be addressed with a tourist tax or by more generous support from a landlord developer that is only currently promising one per cent of the profits from these schemes to the community.

"As for the schemes, they will deliver less than one offshore turbine – and the Scottish Government has already said that offshore is much more efficient and the way to go for the future.

"Our worry more generally is that the glen is a national treasure, and that scenery that generates real passion, pride and financial value for the country is being exploited by an absentee laird and his developer who are just after the subsidies. Folk are being turned against folk as a result – it's terribly unfair."

Mountain charity the John Muir Trust, which is based in Pitlochry, does not have a blanket opposition to run-of-river hydro schemes, but it did feel two of the seven hydro projects approved were inappropriate.

Its chief executive, Andrew Bachell, sought common ground between the various groups fighting for the future of Glen Etive.

He said: “We would agree with many of the statements from Mrs Sutherland – although it should be remembered that many residents of the Highlands are themselves escapees from urban lives.

"We share their concerns about the lack of public investment in infrastructure in our wildest and most scenic areas, and have been working to alleviate the problem in a number of areas. We don’t believe that the solution is simply to sacrifice our wild and scenic areas to the first investor who comes along with a plan to make money.

“We do not have blanket opposition to development on wild or scenic areas, but we are concerned that two of these schemes will adversely affect the landscape of a popular and accessible glen in which young families, and elderly and disabled people, can get close to the wildness of the Scottish mountains.

“Rather than a narrow conflict between commercial development or landscape protection, we would like to see a wider public debate about how to harness and manage our natural resources for the benefit of local communities and the nation as a whole.”