phil h,

I do apologize, I thought you meant Matt's comments. For other readers, I went back and looked at Matt's blog and found 8 Comments noted VERY SMALL under the blog itself. The comments refered to are:
Glenn McDavid said...
Why: The kilt screams "I am not English". This is important to many peole of Irish, Welsh, Cornish, etc. descent as well as those of Scottish ancestry.

Unlike, say, the old Irish leine and brat, the kilt has evolved into a form of modern European dress. It can be worn with modern shoes, shirts, and sweaters. Thus it can plausibly be 21st century clothing as opposed to costume.

Furthermore, consider what may be the second most frequent question the kilt wearer gets: "What tartan is that?" This provides the wearer of the kilt to talk about his heritage, and how the tartan symbolizes that. The actual history of kilts, tartans, and ethnicity need not have much to do with this.

When: You suggested the answer yourself, with the evolution of the rather modern "pan-Celtic" concept. I suspect you will find some correlation there. Perhaps we can think of it as a modern parallel to the post-1707 popularity of tartan in the Lowlands as a protest against the Act of Union.

This is all speculation on my part, but it does seem to fit the current circumstances.

Matt responds to this as:
Matthew Newsome, FSA Scot, GTS said...
All very good thoughts, Glen. I suppose when a Welshman, or someone from Cornwall, wants to identify themselves as "not English," then they really do not have much in the way of visual aspects of their carraige that they can use. The Welsh, for instance, dressed very much like the English, in the twelfth century as well as today.

Only in Scotland do you find so distinct a mode of dress. So we should be honored that others find it so appealing that they want to adapt it.

What really bothers me, however, are the false "histories" that are manufactured to justify the wearing of the kilt. You don't need to justify it! Just wear it!

3:27 PM

Note-> Matt says NOT ENGLISH, not anti-English!!! He goes on to bring it back to HIS point-> "What really bothers me, however, are the false "histories" that are manufactured to justify the wearing of the kilt. You don't need to justify it! Just wear it!"

My bad, I thought BOTH of your references were to Matt's comments. I was confused by the Not you, not Matt, but the comments on the blog. I thought it was in the vein of "not you, but your racist/sexist/etc comments upset me," which I find stupid as usually comments reflect their source.

As for:
Alan H:
" At the Highland Games I attend, there's one tent where the guy who holds forth is pretty vitriolically anti-English. The only problem is that his history is only about two-thirds correct and he ignores things done by his own ancestors that weren't so wonderful, either.

I must say that it really bothers me to hear this attitude and I've taken to just passing over that clan tent when he's there. If your ancestors, nine generations ago,did something horrid to my ancestors, eleven generations ago, I'm going to treat it as "history" not a personal vendetta. What makes it hurtful in my mind is that when peope cometo his tent to ask about geneology information, he wraps up a lot of anti-English with his helpful information, and for someone who really doesn't know anything, that's not very productive.

The Scots areguilty of jut as much bloodshed and persecution as the English are,who have just as gray a history as the Irish. Here in the USA most of us are "mutts" anyway, and to hold a grudge andmake comments like that just seems stupid to me."

Again, the problem is half known history and a felt need to justify one's own feelings. THAT is the same mentality that leads to revisionist history and the stupidity that Cajunscot fights in his job as a parkranger.

It is one thing to poke light fun at one another, but another to ACTUALLY MEAN IT!!!!

Scots love to pick at the Irish and English, but few REALLY MEAN IT. Same with many others. It is a whole other thing down here, where many southerners poke fun at yankees and MEAN IT. Once at the store, one employee was from Buffalo, New York and was rude to a customer. The customer complained to me. To lighten the mood, I go for a cheap laugh and said, "Oh, She's a yankee from New York." The CUSTOMER smiles and says, "Oh, That explains it! Thanks!" and turns walking away singing happily to herself. I am dumbfounded!! Then I start laughing to myself, and tell the otehr employees, who die laughing. The one who seemed an Idiot was the customer!

Back to topic.

Kilts, as we know them, ARE Scot garb. It was ONLY adopted in fairly recent years by non-Scot celts and a bunch of revisionist history is created (it is all BULL!!!) to justify it. THAT is Matt's point. It is mine. And It is Todd's as well.

As to what contemporary kilts will be seen as in a few decades or centuries, THAT is still up for graps and will be seen (probably after my time).

Likely, we are in a period of return to essence, where kilts are again common barb for common wearing, like they were in the Victorian age IN Scotland. The motivating/initiating factor in that may have been Americans and Canadians (sorry about the bad terming) seeking their roots and what was done in the past, who then revived it with their own spin (such as non-wool and non-tartan kilts made from canvas and denim that can be machine washed. Also, such a movement REQUIRES kilts that are cheap enough for poor guys like me to get some and stock up a decent number of them for less than a Scot-made tank imported to the colonies. If I only had the latter, HECK NO I wouldn't wear a thousand dollar garb to the store or a car show.