As another native Scot I find myself in close agreement with Phil and Alex above. Who can deny the historical facts?

Like Alex I am a member of a clan society. I joined before I knew very much about the clan system. I attended clan gatherings and enjoyed the social interaction but there was no deep feeling of kinship with the very diverse group of people there. The original clans were collections of diverse people, not all sharing the same family trees (i.e. not all sharing the same "surname") but willing to swear allegiance to the chief for whatever reasons of economic need etc.. Because they lived. worked and fought together, there is no doubt that a very strong bond did develop between members and this may even, at times have cut across actual family relations. I believe there were cases where brothers of the same family joined different clans and fought each other when their clan interests were in conflict. Who knows they may even have worn the same tartan when they did so for the notion that the tartan was the uniform identifying the clan is also a myth. (They would be carrying their chief's badge in their caps.) So the idea that I have a historical clan-based bond with people who happen to share a surname with me (no matter how that name was acquired) is false. The notion that I have the "right" (maybe even the duty) to wear the tartans of that name whereas those without the surname do not is also false.

I have no objection to people using what they see as a connection with a clan name as a means of establishing a closer relationship with Scotland, her history and customs. That is just great for both the individual and my country. I freely confess that I have chosen the tartan for two of my kilts (and for my avatar) from just such a supposed association and I am happy to wear those tartans. But I don't delude myself into thinking that I am preserving or paying homage to a valuable ancient social system when I do so.