Scottish outlook on kilted Americans?

[Nick the DSM]

If kilts and Scotland are not closely associated, why is our title XMarkstheScot when obviously it should be XMarkstheKilt?

When Xmarks was first created, that was the first moniker that came and has since stuck. I'm fine with it being so.



I think this fossilized horse has been beaten enough.

[cessna152towser]

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?

Just for clarification you are stating this as it applies today, correct? Not some type of legal prohibition correct?
I ask this, not delving into any political discussion, but simply as a matter of fact because in terms of EU membership this issue seems open to debate.

Although there is a passport issuing office in Glasgow, there is no "Scottish" passport.
My partner and I both have the wine red coloured European Union passports lettered European Union on the front cover. She is German and her passport which was issued in Nuernberg bears the name Deutschland below the words European Union. I am Scottish and my passport which was issued from Glasgow bears the wording European Union and in smaller print below that is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ten words to describe my nationality yet still no mention of Scotland!

[McClef]

If we were to go by numbers it should be XMARKSTHEAMERICAN.

Seriously though, some items of attire outgrow their borders and become internationally iconic. The kilt is one such.

I would call that honouring the country of origin but part of that honouring must always be to respect, if not necessarily agree with, those who are within the original borders of origin.

And that would include being aware of its history. I would agree that the word "region" is both inaccurate and potentially insulting. You can talk about a region within a country but not as a replacement word for a country.

[TheOfficialBren]

I think this fossilized horse has been beaten enough.

+++++ 1!!!!!

I submit a motion that this thread be closed and further threads of this nature be declined. To quote Jock Scot, "enough is enough."

All that ever comes of this is:

1) An innocent question is posed
2) A few diplomatic people earnestly attempt to reply politely
3) More probing and hypothetical supposition turns the original post on its head creating a debate about culture and, inevitably, a veiled discussion about politics.
4) The proverbial temperature rises and genuine diplomacy gives way to a casual nonchalance that thinly disguises the desire on many sides to lay into one another venting each speaker's blatant opinion.
5) Insistance and entrenched opinions come to a head and the next thing we all know we are duking it out at the Somme...no real headway is made and feelings are (inadvertantly or otherwise) hurt and we realise the futility of the discussion in hindsight.
6) We all agree to disagree and say that we have discussed the topic too much in the past.
7) Someone, a couple of months later poses the question again...and we find ourselves in the same positions.

I am all for free speech but common sense must prevail.

I am finished soapboxing. If I have offended anyone then perhaps they should ask themselves why they were offended in the firstplace.

Peace and good vibes to all. My intention is only to help stop any conflict before it starts.

[Phil]

+++++ 1!!!!!

I submit a motion that this thread be closed and further threads of this nature be declined. To quote Jock Scot, "enough is enough."

All that ever comes of this is:

1) An innocent question is posed
2) A few diplomatic people earnestly attempt to reply politely
3) More probing and hypothetical supposition turns the original post on its head creating a debate about culture and, inevitably, a veiled discussion about politics.
4) The proverbial temperature rises and genuine diplomacy gives way to a casual nonchalance that thinly disguises the desire on many sides to lay into one another venting each speaker's blatant opinion.
5) Insistance and entrenched opinions come to a head and the next thing we all know we are duking it out at the Somme...no real headway is made and feelings are (inadvertantly or otherwise) hurt and we realise the futility of the discussion in hindsight.
6) We all agree to disagree and say that we have discussed the topic too much in the past.
7) Someone, a couple of months later poses the question again...and we find ourselves in the same positions.

I am all for free speech but common sense must prevail.

I am finished soapboxing. If I have offended anyone then perhaps they should ask themselves why they were offended in the firstplace.

Peace and good vibes to all. My intention is only to help stop any conflict before it starts.

A noble sentiment and one with which I agree completely. As you say a diplomatic and honest reply is followed by a contentious post revealing the writer's underlying feelings about the validity or otherwise of wearing a kilt, thinly disguised in a convoluted argument trying to dissemble any valid claim to that garment and, in fact, any claim to the history and tradition behind it.
The bottom line is that nobody can or wishes to stop anyone wearing a kilt - how can they? What this whole discussion seems to throw up, however, is the underlying uncertainties felt about wearing a garment that purports to define a nationality when one does not belong to that nation oneself. What better way to dissemble the whole facade then than to argue against the very existence of that nation? If it doesn't exist how can anyone have a better claim to its symbols?

[TheOfficialBren]

A noble sentiment and one with which I agree completely. As you say a diplomatic and honest reply is followed by a contentious post revealing the writer's underlying feelings about the validity or otherwise of wearing a kilt, thinly disguised in a convoluted argument trying to dissemble any valid claim to that garment and, in fact, any claim to the history and tradition behind it.
The bottom line is that nobody can or wishes to stop anyone wearing a kilt - how can they? What this whole discussion seems to throw up, however, is the underlying uncertainties felt about wearing a garment that purports to define a nationality when one does not belong to that nation oneself. What better way to dissemble the whole facade then than to argue against the very existence of that nation? If it doesn't exist how can anyone have a better claim to its symbols?

Fair enough but by virtue of the speculative nature of each position to be had on this subject it becomes a cyclic debate that is inevitably unresolvable.

[Woodsheal]

When Xmarks was first created, that was the first moniker that came and has since stuck. I'm fine with it being so.



I think this fossilized horse has been beaten enough.

OK, here's the official graphic!:

[TheOfficialBren]

ok, here's the official graphic!:

lmao!!!
:d