Banned From a Pub in Aberdeen

[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

[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

[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.

[macwilkin]

My position is that the identity of the kilt is shifting from the national dress of Scotland to a garment for the everyman.

As long as individuals wear the kilt as a symbol of their Scottish heritage, then the kilt will always be the national dress of Scotland. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, of course, but a garment with the rich history and tradition like a kilt has cannot be stripped of its title overnight, though I do understand the point you're trying to make.

Cheers,

Todd

[Sherry]

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.

...

How did you miss my other thread about this? Tsk, tsk.
http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=13807

Also, this site has a very nice history of the kilt:
http://www.reconstructinghistory.com...ish/index.html
You have to use the side menu to access the pages on the evolution of the kilt.

Sherry

[Archangel]

I'm going to suggest that most of North Americans are wandering into something they are unfamiliar with. It is easy to underestimate the amount of recreational violence attached to soccer in the UK. The equivalent context would be gang colours: it seems clear that that is the reason for the ban. Last time I visited, my uncle made a point of checking me over to make sure that I had no team colours on for any game that day. It is a very intense culture when it comes to that sport.
The kilt in question was attached to the game on, the indications that an un-related kilt would have been acceptable.

[Magnus Sporrano]

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.

FWIW, the Viking sagas tend to give credit to the Scots for the shorter unbifurcated garments that would sometimes come back with a viking who had returned from a campaign to the Hebrides. Would I call it a "kilt"? Probably not. Most credible sources claim there was no such thing as a kilt 1,000 years ago. Nevertheless, the Vikings talked about a "Scottish style" that was different from what the Norsemen wore.