There is, of course, a simple solution available to all and that is to relocate to Scotland, preferably somewhere in the Highlands (Jock will clarify just exactly where), obtain citizenship of the UK of course and then enjoy untrammelled kilt-wearing.
Stepping back for a second and looking at this objectively, it seems a tad backwards to suggest that the wearing of the kilt is more related to national citizenship than heritage, family lineage, or culture. Let's compare a chap who is descended from 10 generations of MacPhersons, for example, who was born in Scotland but emigrated to Canada within the last 6 months, to another chap who was born in Pakistan and emigrated to Scotland within the last 6 months.

Going strictly by national citizenship, I can see how the Pakistani is entitled to wear the kilt as his brand-new "national attire" where the ex-pat Scot is not. But does it really make any sense? If I were to invite the ex-pat Scot to a party and ask him to wear his national attire, I would be expecting him to wear a kilt, regardless of what his passport says. And likewise, if I invited the Pakistani to a party and asked him to wear his national attire, I would expect him to show up wearing the garb of his homeland, which fits his language, identity, religion, etc.

This all seems a little crazy, tying the definition of national attire to citizenship, without any other qualification such as culture or lineage. I guess what I'm saying is that the very concept of "national attire" is outdated or inadequate, and makes no provision for immigration, expatriation, etc.

With that said, though, I'd love to emigrate to Scotland. But your government has made it virtually impossible for someone in my position to do so.