Still goes on - the "mill" shop next to Edinburgh Castle will link you to a clan quick as you like and then sell you anything from a mug with "your" tartan on it, or the full jobby with kilt, jacket, sporran etc etc etc.

An editorial footnote in today's Grauniad takes this "shorts" story and concludes that many countries see the value of fresh air around the wotsits.
It mentions the ankle-length garments of various hot countries ... I wouldn't count those as skirts as they hang from the shoulder right down ...and they sound to be very comfortable.
A shalwar kameez for around the house could be just the ticket.

So you're against skirts, but quite happy to wear a dress?

A friend of mine went Commando for year.

Now, due to lack of support, his knacker-jimas-and-pliers hang so low that it's like Big Ben striking when he gets out of a cast iron bath.

Yes indeed. I was quite happy to support Mr. Beard in his skirt protest, but a dress?

What's next, a nice pinafore and coordinated pullover for those chilly November mornings?

The shalwar kameez is not a dress, dear boy.
It is simply a long shirt (kameez shares its etymology with the word shirt) with 'jama bottoms (shalwar) underneath.
It's got me interested, yes.

It can be loose, light and baggy for cool slobbing around or more tailored and smart in a firmer cloth for those occasions when jimjams just won't do.

So, a dress with long johns, then?

I do possess a pinny.
I tend to term it as an apron though.
Gives me a certain "Yes, Chef" authority.

Noooooo, a dress would have a zip up the back or the side, wouldn't it?
Long johns? ... nowt wrong with long johns, I used to have a pair for rock climbing in winter, great for when you're sitting on an icy ledge belaying.

Had to come back to this thread.
Last night I read a chapter of [iThe invention of tradition[/i, edited by Hobsbawm & Ranger.
In it, Hugh Trevor Roper completely debunks the notion of the kilt being a traditional Scots garment.
The truth is that only Highlanders (seen by Scottish lowlanders as as a right bunch of Irish ruffians) wore the plaid, which was a blanket (not even tartan either, usually brownish stripes or flecks to blend into the heather) wrapped around the torso and coming round the body to end as a short skirt exposing the thighs and pretty much anything else in a half-decent breeze.
Lowlanders wore breeks and stockings and a coat or jacket.

Anyway, a Lancastrian industrialist, Rawlinson, seeking fuel for his iron furnaces, went to the Highlands and recruited men to fell trees and tend the furnaces.
Their garb, whilst suitable for living rough in the heather, was pretty useless for the sort of work that Rawlinson hired them for, so he worked with a tailor to adapt the plaid into a filie beg (philibeg) ... or kilt as we now call it.
To set the example, Rawlinson was the first to wear it.

So, not really Scottish at all.

Hugh Trevor Roper goes on, to further debunk the idea of tartans as a traditional signifier of clan.
As Scottish history (especially Highland history) was re-written (faked by two guys names McPherson) to depict the Irish as having aped Scottish Highland culture instead of the truthful other way round, the kilt became popular but fancy tartan patterns were the preserve of those who could afford them and there are pictures of clan chieftain families where many tartans are worn, befitting fashion rather than anything else. Their lessers wore simple brown philibegs.

A fascinating piece of history, Sir.

There's a lot more, including how the "official" list of clan tartans was a collusion ... but ... another time maybe.