Banned From a Pub in Aberdeen

[Freedomlover]

Assuming they are- we don't know if maybe this guy was being belligerant.

I suppose we don't. But the link to the article gave no hint of obnoxious behavior.

[Freedomlover]

Pretty much everywhere you look in Montana, ...

Yep, that's true. Back in the mid 70's I lived near Lewistown and every bar I went into (now don't get the wrong idea ) had that sign. From 1979 to 1985 I worked (oil field) in Dagmar, Sheridan County, Montana, and the local saloon had the same sign. But I question the legal effect. The fact of the matter is that a public accomodation needs to have an overarching reason to deny service. Lack of shirt or shoes has already been shown in open court to be unenforcable because rules on strictly private property are one thing, but rules for public accomodation are another. In other words, the personal preferences of the business owner do not, and can not, disrupt the natural rights of the customer.

I know that others will disagree. That's fine, I'm not looking for argument.

My only point is that if the gentleman was denied service soley because he was wearing a kilt then I believe legal action would be appropriate. Further information indicates that Mr. Grant was not too put out because he said, {paraphrase} 'other places will be happy to have my business'. Quite right. My personal opinion is that we would all be well advised to take our business where it will be appreciated.

[Ugly Bear]

Maybe it was just the kilt, or maybe it was something else -- attitude, drunkenness, whatever. Either way, by saying that he's not welcome in his kilt, what does that say about Scotland?

To me, it says, in this tiny example, that Scotland is forsaking its national dress. It means that if I hear some Scotsman complaining about me stealing his national identity, I'll have just that much more doubt about the legitimacy of his complaint.

Evidence is mounting that the kilt doesn't belong to Scotland any more.

[Freedomlover]

Here is an extended version of the original article.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2119272005

[macwilkin]

Maybe it was just the kilt, or maybe it was something else -- attitude, drunkenness, whatever. Either way, by saying that he's not welcome in his kilt, what does that say about Scotland?

To me, it says, in this tiny example, that Scotland is forsaking its national dress. It means that if I hear some Scotsman complaining about me stealing his national identity, I'll have just that much more doubt about the legitimacy of his complaint.

Evidence is mounting that the kilt doesn't belong to Scotland any more.

I don't think it's fair to lump the whole nation in with one publican in Aberdeen, though, and say that Scotland is "forsaking its national dress", or that the kilt doesn't belong to Scotland anymore because of one incident.

Besides, I think, as Daz and others have pointed out, that this has more to do with the football aspect than the kilt per se -- and many football fans do wear the kilt, good and bad. This may be a case of "guilt by association".

Cheers,

Todd

[Bob C]

The fact of the matter is that a public accomodation needs to have an overarching reason to deny service.

Nonsense. These are not public facilities. They're privately owned property.

I'll decide who has entry to my property, and I'll respect the right of these folks to do the same, in Montana, Aberdeen or elsewhere.

[Ugly Bear]

I don't think it's fair to lump the whole nation in with one publican in Aberdeen, though, and say that Scotland is "forsaking its national dress", or that the kilt doesn't belong to Scotland anymore because of one incident.

True. This is just one incident, and hardly conclusive. But it is an indicator. I haven't seen it with my own eyes, of course, but I get the impression that the Scots hardly wear the kilt any more. I believe it's been relegated to special occasions (football matches, weddings and so on) and the tourism industry. Very few wear it casually or day-to-day.

I don't have any statistics, but I'd bet real money that the majority of kilts produced in Scotland today are for export abroad.

The story is a piece of evidence, nothing more, that kilts are not strictly Scottish. I've never given much credence to the "kilts-are-Scottish-and-Scottish-alone-so-foreigners-can't-wear-them-and-certainly-can't-dicker-with-the-design" position. Less so, because of stories like this.

[macwilkin]

True. This is just one incident, and hardly conclusive. But it is an indicator. I haven't seen it with my own eyes, of course, but I get the impression that the Scots hardly wear the kilt any more. I believe it's been relegated to special occasions (football matches, weddings and so on) and the tourism industry. Very few wear it casually or day-to-day.

I don't have any statistics, but I'd bet real money that the majority of kilts produced in Scotland today are for export abroad.

The story is a piece of evidence, nothing more, that kilts are not strictly Scottish. I've never given much credence to the "kilts-are-Scottish-and-Scottish-alone-so-foreigners-can't-wear-them-and-certainly-can't-dicker-with-the-design" position. Less so, because of stories like this.

I agree with you on the last point in the above post, but whether or not Scots today wear them, the heritage and history of the kilt will always be Scottish, period.

And, just because someone chooses not to wear a kilt everyday or "casually" does not mean that they have no respect for the kilt as "national dress". I do not wear my kilt everyday, because it is a special garment to me, and I don't want to be on the same level as a pair of jeans that I wear everyday.

Cheers,

Todd

[ByDand]

I believe that a lot is missing from the news report, however we have had similar events in the US. About 10 years ago in Peachtree City, GA, a high school senior was banned from attending his prom while wearing a kilt. The high school (McIntosh High School!!!!!) refused to admit him to the prom even though he was wearing a traditional kilt with white formal shirt and bow tie. They gave the reason that the rules forbade the wearing of shorts?

It is forums like this (and I thank all who use the forum and those who started it) that help to open people's minds and make it more acceptable for men to wear the kilt without being the brunt of jokes or discrimination.

By the way the young man who tried to wear the kilt to his prom was of Scottish heritage.

[Ugly Bear]

I agree with you on the last point in the above post, but whether or not Scots today wear them, the heritage and history of the kilt will always be Scottish, period.

Yes, the heritage will always be Scottish, which brings up an interesting point. There is controversy today over who invented the kilt -- a couple theories out there are that it was invented by an Englishman, or brought in by Norsemen. But these theories mean nothing at all about national dress because the Scots themselves effectively "owned" the kilt.

Today, ownership is ... let's say it's a fuzzy issue. If more people abroad wear the kilt (traditional, and its modern descendants (Utilikilt et al)) than Scots do, who "owns" it? My position is that the identity of the kilt is shifting from the national dress of Scotland to a garment for the everyman.

And, just because someone chooses not to wear a kilt everyday or "casually" does not mean that they have no respect for the kilt as "national dress". I do not wear my kilt everyday, because it is a special garment to me, and I don't want to be on the same level as a pair of jeans that I wear everyday.

I agree. My point was simply that the Scots, in not wearing the kilt regularly, don't really have ... oh, I hate to say "moral authority" here, but I can't think of another term. They can't dictate what everyone else makes of the kilt.