The article is about protecting "Scottish Kilt," not the term "kilt."

I actually AGREE with Howie on this one.
There needs to be a marked distinction between a tank and what the Gold Brothers sell over the counter on the Royal Mile (which is deceptively tagged as a Scottish Kilt, designed in Scotland).

We can STILL use the term "kilt" all we want and know what it is.

From the article:
If their attempt is successful it would mean that only kilts that were hand sewn, made in Scotland and made from pure wool could be known as a Scottish kilt. Those that did not meet the three criteria would simply have to be known as kilts. Mr Nicholsby, 29, said: "This campaign has come about through years of frustration. I grew tired of seeing poor quality kilts selling in shops on the high street for £20 and calling themselves Scottish kilts.
I can live with the term "Scottish Kilt" meaning: only kilts that were hand sewn, made in Scotland and made from pure wool could be known as a Scottish kilt.

Steve, Matt, and most American/Canadian made kilts would STILL be a "kilt," but would be somewhat distinct from a Scottish Kilt. Matt even tags his now as "Made in America of Scottish Materials" or the like (don't have the actual text or a picture of it at hand).
What "pushes" it are kilts like those made by Barb, Elsie, and Kathy. They are IDENTICAL in all virtually every way except in nation where the hand sewer resides.
I'd be curious as to Barb's take on this article and Howie's idea.
I can see where Howie is coming from and what he trying to "protect."
How does that affect Bard's creations? I'll have to ask her . . .