THOSE twin pillars of Scottish culture and tradition, the kilt and the bagpipes, are under foreign pressure, and it’s all down to our Celtic cousins across the Irish Sea, or at least their national saint’s day.

First of all a kilted man was arrested in Moscow at the weekend for “wearing a skirt”. He was apparently in the city to celebrate St Patrick’s Day, according to reports from the Russian capital.

Then on Monday it emerged that police in Minneapolis in the US were advising kilted marchers at the St Patrick’s Day Parade that it might be best to consider “undergarments” beneath their tartans to avoid indecent exposure.

Yesterday the respected Chicago Tribune newspaper marked St Patrick’s Day with a commentary calling for bagpipes to be banned from the celebrations on grounds that they are Scottish not Irish.

The latter item caused a social media storm in the US, with the 168-year-old Tribune’s own Facebook page registering a number of protests, including one contributor who pointed out that St Patrick was probably born in Scotland – Old Kilpatrick between Clydebank and Dumbarton on the Clyde is supposed to have the best claim to being his birthplace.

“Have a Guinness and lighten up!” wrote Doris Bachman, while Michael Martinez upbraided the Tribune: “Just as there are Irish kilts, there are also Irish bagpipes. Know the facts before you write a headline.”

Bill Nicholson piped up: “If you go to the Museum of Musical Instruments in Brussels you can see Irish bagpipes. The Scots are just a whole lot better at it.”

Michelle McCord Beadle wrote: “If you are going to do that, how about banning all those who are not Irish or have Ireland in their heritage from being in the parade,” though Steve Dillon opined: “Playing the bagpipes should be criminal offense (sic).”

Rod Germann told the old joke: “Q: Why do bagpipers always walk when they play? A: They’re trying to get away from that sound too.” Perhaps Will Dalton made the most apposite comment: “Lamest controversy ever.”

It got more serious north west of Chicago, however. There is genuine concern in Minneapolis in the State of Minnesota over the wearing of the kilt, or should that be the wearing, or not, of something under the kilt.

Controversy was recently prompted by the declaration by Brian Wilton, director of the Scottish Tartans Authority, that it was no longer necessary to wear nothing under the kilt to prove that you are a true Scot.

Wilton said: “The idea that you are not a real Scot unless you are bare under your kilt should be thrown into the same wastepaper basket as the idea that you’re not a real Scot unless you put salt on your porridge.”

His words have been treated as near-blasphemy by some, and former racing driver David Coulthard has said the “commando” tradition should stay. In Minneapolis, the proof that we all live in a global village came when CBS reporter Edgar Linares began to investigate whether it was correct to forego underwear when wearing a kilt.

Linares duly did what all good reporters do, and asked the local police for their view.

Back came the intriguing answer from Minneapolis Police spokesman John Elder who said there’s no law that says you actually need to wear undergarments any time.

Linares reported Elder as saying: “However, if you engage in behaviour where the kilt is no longer adequately covering you, and you expose yourself, that’s where the law becomes active.”

Apparently in Minnesota, the punishment for indecent exposure is a misdemeanour, as long as you haven’t been convicted of it twice in the previous five years or three times in the past 10.

Linares added: “Elder said it’s not something he’s ever had to deal with. But his advice was: ‘Keep yourself covered. I don’t care how you do that, it’s just best to not test your luck.’”

From Minneapolis to Moscow and even Chicago, the cry rises from every throat of Scottish ancestry – is nothing sacred?