Scottish outlook on kilted Americans?

[CMcG]

Scotland was and is to this day a separate nation in its own right, with its own distinctive system of laws, education, religion, language, customs, music etc. and to infer otherwise is to completely misunderstand the unique nature of the United Kingdom.

...

What you cannot deny, however, is that the kilt is a Scottish symbol and one which so many others covet and aspire to. If this causes you problems, perhaps because it is something you will never genuinely achieve yourself, then so be it. It is not a reason, however, for you to try to diminish Scotland and the Scots.

Apologies, I did not mean any offence and I'm not trying to "diminish Scotland and the Scots," but rather to point out my confusion regarding a point of view held by some Scots. This conundrum is that there are Scots who think that Scotland's national attire should only be worn by the people of a nation that is not a nation, in the common sense of that word

I guess I don't understand the unique nature of the United Kingdom and I'm not trying to start a political debate, which is not allowed on this forum. My lack of knowledge regarding the nuances of the UK system, however, is belied by the simple fact that Scotland cannot be an independent member of the United Nations (nor can England for that matter) and there is no such a thing as a Scottish passport that could serve to identify Scottish nationals. Or I am mistaken and a British passport can say "Scottish" (not British) under the nationality section?

There is no denying that the kilt is a Scottish symbol and a very important one at that. Things like a "system of laws, education, religion, language, customs, music etc." are markers of distinct society and culture, but not necessarily nationhood, unless we take nation in its other sense as a group of people bound by ethnicity, culture, history, and language, without the requirement of being a sovereign state.

In a transnational, post-modern world, the broader and more inclusive meaning of nation makes more sense to me than one defined solely by geo-political boundaries and citizenship because it has more to do with lived experience and identity. In this sense, I can understand Scotland as a nation. That's why I am still boggled by the view held by some Scots that their national attire should not be worn by people who are citizens of another country. I have more understanding for the position that Highland attire be worn only by people of Highland descent, though I don't necessarily agree with it or think it to be problem free either.

So does the same logic mean that Canada, for instance, is a region of the United Kingdom?

...

The same logic would have applied to Canada up until 1982, when we repatriated our constitution and thereby moved legal supremacy from the British Parliament to the Canadian Constitution, Parliament, and Supreme Court.