On the ground floor of something big?

[pbpersson]

I refer to the Utilikilt as just that, "a Utilikilt," and tell the person that it has no connection to anything Scottish.

Well....I am not Scottish and I don't want to pretend to be Scottish to make my kilt wearing "okay" in someone's eyes, I'm wearing them because I just think they are fun.

So, here is a question for you - if I buy a Stillwater Nightstalker is it Scottish or is it just a kilt? If I get a "traditional" kilt with a sporran (since it has no pockets) and I get it in a Swedish or German tartan is it Scottish? I hope not, because I'm Swedish and German.

At what point does a kilt become "not connected with Scotland" I guess is my question? I think that's hard to define as you can get a solid-colored kilt from some "traditional" kilt makers or tartans from some "contemporary" kilt makers. :confused:

[Southern Breeze]

The Nightstalker (correct me if I'm wrong) is Stillwaters creation.
On the Scottish connection- the design of the kilt-pleats,apron,overall structure is (in my eyes) what make it Scottish and not just the tartan. You don't have to have Scottish "connections" to wear a kilt.

[kiltimabar]

...having made that point-in respect of the growth of popularity of the kilt: recently I saw one of the cheaper kilt variants in a shop window in Bath. Secondly, I at present live in North London: and a men's wear shop which would often have a kilt in the window, has all of a sudden turned into the centre for highland dress: which suggests that there is a developing market for such garments in the area.

To move a step further, the media almost daily shows pictures of kilted men, highland wear shops and makers are proliferating. Wales and Cornwall, locations to which the kilt was to recently entirely alien are now sprouting their own home grown wearers. I myself no longer attract any attention when wearing my kilt. All suggestive of a bubble building up which would only take some slight stimulus to explode upon the scene.

I hope I've not trampled on too many toes.

James

To me, this sounds like great progress! While some are denying it, the only real differences between traditional Scottish kilts and utilikilts are only minor details--not tartan? There are solid color Scottish kilts. Not wool? It's pretty hard to tell the difference with some of the new fabrics. Belt loops? Well gee, how big a problem is that? Pockets? Sounds like a practical feature, and even some traditional kiltmakers do them (the Hector Russell Hillwalker, for one). So it's not an impossible breach of logic to go from a traditional tank to a casual kilt. The wrap, the pleats, the apron are the visual clues that most people will see to recognize "That's a kilt!" American, Scottish--details, merely details.

[Raphael]

At what point does a kilt become "not connected with Scotland" I guess is my question? I think that's hard to define as you can get a solid-colored kilt from some "traditional" kilt makers or tartans from some "contemporary" kilt makers. :confused:

The Kilt will forever be associate with Scotland and there is not 'but' or 'if' about it. I am not a Scot either, and never have tried to pretend that I have any connenction with Scotland. I wear the kilt because I have always been fascinated by it. I have never justify it to anyone and I don't see a reason to do it either.

Even the Utilikilt is 'not connected to Scotland' but people still wonder whether I am Scottish or not.

Enjoy your Stillwater Nightstalker.

[auld argonian]

To be serious for a moment...

...I think that the basic kilt "format", if you will, has been knocking around Europe for hundreds if not thousands of years. That the form was adopted by the Scots and that tartan material was used is sort of a branch on the tree...the basic form existed before that happened. Thus I look at the "modern" non-tartan canvas or whatever kilt as a sort of plain, utilitarian descendant of the basic kilt form and not some kind of bastardization of the Scottish tartan form...just another branch on the tree. While I personally prefer the look of tartan I have no problem with the "modern" style and can't knock anyone who digs them.

Best

AA

[Tim Walker]

I see kilts for men about where pants for women were in the 40s - still generally uncommon & not always accepted. It was until the 60s that women wearing pants became commonplace in the general populace & it wasn't until the 70s that institutions like schools & businesses began to allow women to wear pants. Since trends do seem to be more accelerated these days, I guess that in 10 years or so (at best) we may see kilts as a fairly common site in American society. Maybe...

If kilts never become commonplace, well, it's their loss & I'll still be wearin' mine!
.

If it should take two or three decades one implication is generational change. A new generation will grow up; one aspect of their childhood will be the eccentrics in kilts. Given "trousers" tyranny the eccentrics will be a small but conspicuous minority.