In reply to UKH Articles:
I've lived and hiked extensively in New Zealand, which has an incredible range of back-country huts ranging from a roof and a bunk slab through to the kind of huts you see on the great walks, with toilets, running water, stoves etc. Almost none of these have any form of road built to them and they do nothing to remove the feeling of being wild. Most of them are invisible until you get really close. Most of the comments I read above seem utterly uninformed as to the purpose of huts. The comment about youth hostels implies that only people who stay at youth hostels would stay at a hut. Well I would not be seen dead in a youth hostel if there was a proper hotel available but still happy to stay in a hut because that's all there is available. It enables you to hike without a tent and thus saves weight and allows more people to enjoy the outside.
I've also hiked extensively in Europe - mainly Switzerland, Italy and Austria - which also have fabulous mountain refugees. Many of these also have no road access (but some do). Again, these range from a hotel in the mountains through to a dorm room with outside toilets and everything in between. Compared to the NZ huts, they are luxurious (none of the NZ backcountry huts have anything like showers, for example... but often are close to streams).
You need to decide what you are trying to achieve before deciding what kind of accommodation makes most sense. For increasing tourisms, the Alpine style huts attract people who don't really want to sleep in their clothes or go without washing for a week. But to make the wilderness easier for more basic hikers, basic huts are all that is required.
Overall, it sounds like a great debate to be having and I, for one, would be much more likely to hike in Scotland if something comes of it.