Wearing a basket hilt.?.

[Dale Seago]

Surely there was a time when swords, such as those pictured above, were a common weapon for Scots, regardless of their social standing (although I suspect that Pole-Arms were perhaps more common, just not as "cool" to future generations).

Pretty much correct in my understanding. By The Forty-Five, at least, most Scottish Gael were too cash-poor to own a sword unless they had a hand-me-down.

As in the rest of the world, these swords ceased to be functional not long after the rise in popularity of the firearms. As a result, swords were relegated to a ceremonial purpose, that of setting apart some in the military from others. In most cases this distinction was between officers and enlisted men, although Non-Commissioned Officers in the Marine Corps rate swords of their own. Even British court dress used the sword as a symbol that the bearer is a gentleman, not that his ancestors may have hacked at someone with a "previous model."

I essentially agree, with the proviso that "not long" may be longer than some realize. The gentlemen of the clans, the "front-rankers" in the battle order, were using swords along with muskets and pistols through the 1745-46 Rising, and I recall at least one instance of a unit of Highlanders using their broadswords in a battle on the North American continent against an outnumbering force of Siberian-Americans during the French & Indian Wars a decade or so later.

I guess I can imagine three different scenarios in which one might see a sword being worn in a Highland Games context:
1. The sword is worn as part of a uniform- e.g. the Drum Major of a Pipe Band in Full No.1 Dress. In this case the sword is a part of the uniform and is a sign of rank/significance.

Always looks great.

2. A reenactor, dressed to portray an 18th century Highlander, is wearing a period-accurate sword as part of a living history exhibit. In this case the sword is used to demonstrate the manner in which historical Scots fought, so in a sense it has a utilitarian purpose for this particular demonstration.

I dearly love these, as long as they're confining their efforts to a portrayal of how they looked and what they fought with. At various events in California there are always reenactors who seem to think they're portraying how they fought, and I always have to put great effort into NOT going out onto the field and smacking them around to give them a sense of the ways in which they're leaving themselves open.

3. Some guy buys a cheap, imported, basket-hilt broadsword from ebay, straps it on over a couple yards of tartan flannel bought at Jo-Ann Fabric that he's wrapped around his waist, paints his face blue (just like William Wallace did!!), puts on his special "Jacobite" frilly shirt, and attends his local highland games for the first time because he thinks that's what should be worn. I have no idea what purpose the sword could possible serve, other than to make him look like he is a kid playing "dress-up".

IMHO, wearing a bogus "weapon" with a kilt just serves to make kilted attire a "costume", in the perjorative sense.

See my above comment pertaining to smacking around.

By the way, in the photo of the swords & dirks, the second dirk down looks like Vince & Grace Evans' work (she does the handle carving). . .the backsword with the browned-steel basket looks Vince-ish to me too. Really sweet!!!