I think you're going to need more than a few butterflies there. In practice the Campbells (for which you can normally substitute Argyll, as he was the local capo di tutti capo) were the governmental heavies in the area. Argyll was one of James VII's most fervent supporters - principally as this brought him more money, power and influence. While he was a Presbyterian, I can't locate a thing which says he was in any way anti-Catholic (other than for public consumption).
Archibald Campbell was indeed a supporter of the government after the Restoration, which is quite extraordinary when you consider that Charles II had his father executed on trumped up charges in spite of the various general amnesties he granted to everyone other than the regicides. He aided the government against the Covenanter rebellion of 1678, and was not a vocal opponent of Charles II.
However he ran afoul of James (when Duke of York) in 1681 when he refused to take an oath precribed by the Test Act of 1681 without reservations. He was required to declare that he supported the King, and the Episcopalian Church, and basically abjure the any adherence to the "National Covenant." The Earl was willing to take the oath, but only with reservations. The Duke of York demanded that he take the oath without reservation, when he refused he was arrested and charged with high treason. Argyle was convicted of high treason, and while awaiting either execution or a royal pardon escaped Edinburgh Castle and fled to the Netherlands.
After his flight the Earl of Argyle was an inveterate opponent of the Stuarts, and Episcopalianism. Macaulay described him during his stay in Holland below:
He had, during his residence on the Continent, reflected much more deeply on religious questions than in the preceding years of his life. In one respect the effect of these reflections on his mind had been pernicious. His partiality for the synodical form of church government now amounted to bigotry. When he remembered how long he had conformed to the established worship, he was overwhelmed with shame and remorse, and showed too many signs of a disposition to atone for his defection by violence and intolerance. He had however, in no long time, an opportunity of proving that the fear and love of a higher Power had nerved him for the most formidable conflicts by which human nature can be tried.
Macaulay, Thomas Babington The History of England from the Accession of James II,
While the Campbells and their allies were largely committed to the government side, some, like Auchinbreck and Breadalbane weren't so reliant on government backing and were willing to take the other side on occasion.
The other side of the equation is the Clan Donald federation and it's allies. Historically, there had been centuries of conflict between the the Stewart kingship in Scotland and the Lordship of the Isles. The Lordship at one time controlled a far larger area- comprising most of the Western Highlands, the Western Isles, the Isle of Man and large swathes of Ireland - than did the Kings of Scots.
This is what I am more interested in. Even though many of these clans fought against the government during the Jacobite rebellions, I wonder whether their adherence to the Stuarts was more a symptom of their dissatisfaction with the central government's policy. Would they have been willing to fight against James II's enemies while he was still in power?