Scottish outlook on kilted Americans?

[David Thorpe]

A nation is not defined by borders or citizenship, ergo neither should national attire.

Precisely stated. ***

[Jock Scot]

In this far from perfect world that we live in, billions of Pounds, Dollars, Euros and Roubles to name just a few currencies are spent protecting assorted national borders from those with opposing ideas. So Nations are defined by borders whether we like it or not. Whilst assorted National attire is hardly worth waging war over, nevertheless, how dare others from another country tell another what they should,or, should not do with their National attire, it is the height of arrogance so to do and is contrary to the mutual understanding that I am sure, we all here are hoping for.

I am sorry mods if this is breaking some rule or other, but really, enough is enough!

[Phil]

Actually, Phil, in the same post you quoted me from, I addressed your point about nations having more to do with culture than with politics. I also said that I see Scotland as a nation in that sense, so I don't disagree with you. In fact, you are supporting my point!

Example please because reading your posts I don't see any such assertion

The link you posted clears up a few terms and is worth quoting a bit more of:

"While the terms country, state, and nation are often used interchangeably, there is a difference.

A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country.

A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State."

Your previous posts refer specifically to "nation" and in no case do I dispute any reference to "State". The United Kingdom is a sovereign state composed of the kingdoms of Scotland and England, both historic and distinct "nations".

My remarks about the lack of a Scottish State were meant to critique a position that some Scots hold, which suggests that being a Scot, and therefor having the sole right to wear the kilt, is defined by citizenship and geo-political boundaries, rather than culture, history, language, etc. I was basically deconstructing the aporia of a position that conflates national attire with citizenship, because this is mixing the meaning of nation and State. An extreme example of the position that causes me so much confusion is when I have had Scots suggest that if another Scot (born and raised) should emigrate and change their citizenship, they lose the right to wear the kilt

I don't recall making this assertion at any point. I do, however recall you attempting to diminish the nation of Scotland by referring to it as a "region" and, no doubt, by assumption a region of England - a common misapprehension among uninformed foreigners.

A nation is not defined by borders or citizenship, ergo neither should national attire.

I couldn't agree more. Let us all dress like Morris dancers, or we could wear lederhosen or perhaps saris just to demonstrate that no particular nation has any right to claim a personal identity. Rather that than some innocuous melting pot that has no distinctive identity or culture of its own but seeks to latch onto and corrupt that of others. Where else could you find french dressing that is about as French as fly in the air? Or, perhaps kilts that are nothing more than denim skirts?

[neloon]

If kilts and Scotland are not closely associated, why is our title XMarkstheScot when obviously it should be XMarkstheKilt?

[Nick the DSM]

If kilts and Scotland are not closely associated, why is our title XMarkstheScot when obviously it should be XMarkstheKilt?

When Xmarks was first created, that was the first moniker that came and has since stuck. I'm fine with it being so.



I think this fossilized horse has been beaten enough.

[Phil]

Four months "younger" than you!

I was looking at the number of posts but apologies for branding you as a newcomer! The join date is a bit misleading in that I have been here for a good while before 2007but I don't know why the date should show up as 2007. Perhaps something to do with the change of ownership of the site.

[cessna152towser]

there is no such a thing as a Scottish passport that could serve to identify Scottish nationals. Or I am mistaken and a British passport can say "Scottish" (not British) under the nationality section?

Just for clarification you are stating this as it applies today, correct? Not some type of legal prohibition correct?
I ask this, not delving into any political discussion, but simply as a matter of fact because in terms of EU membership this issue seems open to debate.

Although there is a passport issuing office in Glasgow, there is no "Scottish" passport.
My partner and I both have the wine red coloured European Union passports lettered European Union on the front cover. She is German and her passport which was issued in Nuernberg bears the name Deutschland below the words European Union. I am Scottish and my passport which was issued from Glasgow bears the wording European Union and in smaller print below that is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ten words to describe my nationality yet still no mention of Scotland!

[McClef]

If we were to go by numbers it should be XMARKSTHEAMERICAN.

Seriously though, some items of attire outgrow their borders and become internationally iconic. The kilt is one such.

I would call that honouring the country of origin but part of that honouring must always be to respect, if not necessarily agree with, those who are within the original borders of origin.

And that would include being aware of its history. I would agree that the word "region" is both inaccurate and potentially insulting. You can talk about a region within a country but not as a replacement word for a country.

[TheOfficialBren]

I think this fossilized horse has been beaten enough.

+++++ 1!!!!!

I submit a motion that this thread be closed and further threads of this nature be declined. To quote Jock Scot, "enough is enough."

All that ever comes of this is:

1) An innocent question is posed
2) A few diplomatic people earnestly attempt to reply politely
3) More probing and hypothetical supposition turns the original post on its head creating a debate about culture and, inevitably, a veiled discussion about politics.
4) The proverbial temperature rises and genuine diplomacy gives way to a casual nonchalance that thinly disguises the desire on many sides to lay into one another venting each speaker's blatant opinion.
5) Insistance and entrenched opinions come to a head and the next thing we all know we are duking it out at the Somme...no real headway is made and feelings are (inadvertantly or otherwise) hurt and we realise the futility of the discussion in hindsight.
6) We all agree to disagree and say that we have discussed the topic too much in the past.
7) Someone, a couple of months later poses the question again...and we find ourselves in the same positions.

I am all for free speech but common sense must prevail.

I am finished soapboxing. If I have offended anyone then perhaps they should ask themselves why they were offended in the firstplace.

Peace and good vibes to all. My intention is only to help stop any conflict before it starts.

[Phil]

+++++ 1!!!!!

I submit a motion that this thread be closed and further threads of this nature be declined. To quote Jock Scot, "enough is enough."

All that ever comes of this is:

1) An innocent question is posed
2) A few diplomatic people earnestly attempt to reply politely
3) More probing and hypothetical supposition turns the original post on its head creating a debate about culture and, inevitably, a veiled discussion about politics.
4) The proverbial temperature rises and genuine diplomacy gives way to a casual nonchalance that thinly disguises the desire on many sides to lay into one another venting each speaker's blatant opinion.
5) Insistance and entrenched opinions come to a head and the next thing we all know we are duking it out at the Somme...no real headway is made and feelings are (inadvertantly or otherwise) hurt and we realise the futility of the discussion in hindsight.
6) We all agree to disagree and say that we have discussed the topic too much in the past.
7) Someone, a couple of months later poses the question again...and we find ourselves in the same positions.

I am all for free speech but common sense must prevail.

I am finished soapboxing. If I have offended anyone then perhaps they should ask themselves why they were offended in the firstplace.

Peace and good vibes to all. My intention is only to help stop any conflict before it starts.

A noble sentiment and one with which I agree completely. As you say a diplomatic and honest reply is followed by a contentious post revealing the writer's underlying feelings about the validity or otherwise of wearing a kilt, thinly disguised in a convoluted argument trying to dissemble any valid claim to that garment and, in fact, any claim to the history and tradition behind it.
The bottom line is that nobody can or wishes to stop anyone wearing a kilt - how can they? What this whole discussion seems to throw up, however, is the underlying uncertainties felt about wearing a garment that purports to define a nationality when one does not belong to that nation oneself. What better way to dissemble the whole facade then than to argue against the very existence of that nation? If it doesn't exist how can anyone have a better claim to its symbols?