Quite right, as I published on my own blog last week also. And as we all know, Kevin has been saying this for years and years.
I think the reason for the obsession some people (ex-pat Scots included) for how to wear the kilt is a hangover from when the civilian kilt was militarised in 1746. When the Dress Act was repealed in 1782, the only people who had legally worn them for the previous 36 years were soldiers and officers of the highland regiments. So when it was an article of uniform, it would have been subject to the same level of detailed regulation as the red coat, boots, wigs, packs, and every other item of military attire. Of course, after 1782, the army continued to wear kilts, prolonging the confusion between an article of uniform, and an article of civilian dress, which is not subject to regulation. My impression is that when the act was repealed, that there was a sense of "civilianising" an item of military uniform, rather than reversing the previous militarisation of a longstanding item of civilian attire. So the baggage of how to wear it as a uniform accompanied its later use. I still see people from Scotland argue (in the ceaseless underpants debate) "When I was in the army we had dress inspections with a mirror, and anyone caught wearing underpants..." Well I have news for him: most men are not in the army and I haven't been in the army for some time. Putting a kilt on is not the same as wearing chest webbing or a military hat in public.
An answer I have started giving to kilt cops around the place, is "My kilt is not a military kilt, it's a civilian one, just like the clothes you're wearing. The army has shirts and troo$er$, but you don't adhere to Army Standing Orders for Dress in how you iron them, or what kind of belt you wear, and neither to I.
As Kevin says, "My kilt, my rules."
p.s. the text editor keeps changing the word troo$er$ and p@nt$ to a bunch of punctuation marks. No idea why.