Hands Aff Oor Kilts!

[Pour1Malt]

And I couldn't agree more that the Whiskey/Whisky/Cheese analogies are "apples and oranges." Bourbon and Scotch are made from different ingredients. So, of course you would never call one the other or vice versa.

"Bourbon and Scotch are made from different ingredients. "

this is exactly whit Howie is talkin' aboot!

the plastic crap kilts arr NOT made from the same ingredients!

they shuidnae bae called Scottish Kilts...

[highlander_Daz]

Thats a great point Robertson, the article suggests only garments made in Scotland should be called a "Scottish Kilt" If sweatshops in Edinburgh started churning out cheap and nasty Kilts then they could still be called "Scottish Kilts", Dangerous

Id suggest a "standard" a bit like the old kite mark if anyone remembers it
or a "guild of master Kiltmakers" or an ISO standard.

Id hate to see talented Kiltmakers like Matt and Barb, classed alongside the Gold bros rubbish because of where they happen to live.

Ive always disliked the way the royal mile fleeces tourists, but we all know the issues that Howie has had with the Gold Bros since they became his landlords, I wouldnt like to think that Howie is using this issue to generate negative publicity for the Gold bros,
its basicailly a flawed arguement to use the place of origin as a benchmark, for example a great Highland bagpipe doesnt have to be made in the Highlands nor does an Irish whistle, or French bread or Madras curries, Belfast sinks, etc all these things would be used as examples by sharp suited lawyers, the factors we are talking about here are:

The quality, weight and length of the fabric involved
and the skill of the craftsman/women making the garment,

the place of manufacture comes a distant third.

[Glen C]

I agree that something needs to be done, to clear up the truth in labeling/advertising amoungst the various kiltmakers. In fact they already have a way. See www.kilts.co.uk and click on "About Chisholms". Duncan Chisholm & Sons Kiltmakers have been fighting this battle for years. The quality makers need to get together and make a lot of noise about this problem, They need to educate the public to look for proper labeling. After all if they don't try to protect their product, no one will!

[Chef]

Thats a great point Robertson, the article suggests only garments made in Scotland should be called a "Scottish Kilt" If sweatshops in Edinburgh started churning out cheap and nasty Kilts then they could still be called "Scottish Kilts", Dangerous

I doubt that could happen. First the article also states that the kilt must be made of pure wool and it must be hand sewn. Even in a sweatshop you could not make kilts cheaply enough as the cost of materials and time required would be too great. Also you require too high a level of skill.

Even with this kind of protection Gold Brothers will sell plenty of kilts. The difference is, most of those who buy them won't be under the impression they have bought the genuine article.

[Standard]

In fact they already have a way. See www.kilts.co.uk and click on "About Chisholms". Duncan Chisholm & Sons Kiltmakers have been fighting this battle for years. The quality makers need to get together and make a lot of noise about this problem, They need to educate the public to look for proper labeling. After all if they don't try to protect their product, no one will!

Interesting article, I for one was unaware that this organization even existed. I wonder how many of the kiltmakers make ue of the classification shown in your link?

[Tattoo Bradley]

"Bourbon and Scotch are made from different ingredients. "

this is exactly whit Howie is talkin' aboot!

the plastic crap kilts arr NOT made from the same ingredients!

they shuidnae bae called Scottish Kilts...

Right indeed. BUT, I wasn't referring to the plastic kilts. I was referring to the kilts the likes of our fine American Traditional Kiltmakers produce. It would be a real shame to see them ostracized simply because they're located in the USA. They produce kilts of the same (or better in some cases) quality, of the same ingredients, and the same "recipe" as the proposed "Scottish Kilt."

Matt really has it in the bag with is "Hand made in America from Scottish Cloth" tags.

[Graham]

I'm coming in late on this, the issue has only just hit our local newspapers.
The report here was confusing, first saying that "only kilts made in Scotland could be called kilts", then quoting Howie saying "the campaign was designed to stop makers of cheap, imported garments calling them Scottish kilts".

The first comment is clearly ridiculous, the later is understandable, but is the thin end of the wedge.
Surely the quality of a product speaks for itself?
Whether the kilt is made in Canada, USA or Scotland, if it's well made - it's a kilt.
Whether it's a casual kilt, plain kilt, tartan kilt, 8 yard, 5 yard or polyviscose - heck, it's still a kilt.
If it's a gold Bros product then I would just call it a cheap, imported, crappy kilt-like garment.

Surely people have the intelligence to work it out and decide for themselves?

My two bob's worth.

[Ian.MacAllan]

. . . I wouldnt like to think that Howie is using this issue to generate negative publicity for the Gold bros, . .

In my (perhaps warped) opinion Howie is generating negative publicity for himself. Of course, there are people who believe that there is no such thing as bad publicity; maybe he is one of those.


I have noticed that there are a number of occupations (journalism, litigation and politics come immediately to mind) whose practitioners are expected to be jacks of all trades and frequently come off short of satisfying that expectation. The comments ". . . the hem sits just below the knee . . ." and ". . . the plural of kilt is kilt . . ." are instances of a journalist getting something almost but not quite right. I would not expect any knowlegable person to say "I own four kilt" but a purist may well say "I own four of the kilt." Similarly anyone might say either "I wear kilts" or "I wear the kilt." Thus I infer that "kilts" and "the kilt" are both acceptable plurals of "kilt".

I also wonder why there have been repeated mentions of wine, whisky and cheese, which seem to me rather poor analogies, but there is no mention of Harris Tweed, which seems to me a close analogy.

.

[Jock Scot]

Taking your "person sewing the two kilts" and expanding it a bit.It would make one heck of a differance if one kilt was made from a cloth of ,say any of the major cloth makers and a kilt made from "Harris" tweed.There is an act of Parliament protecting "Harris Tweed".Protection,right or wrong,already exists in the Scottish cloth world.

Not quite right there Ian,but I can quite understand how you did not notice it in the "fog"!

[JakobT]

'Scotch' is already protected....

ya cannae mak whisky outside Scotland an' ca' it 'Scotch'...

actually so arr 'Whisky, Champagne, Bourbon, Abroath Smokies, Port' and many other things...

this is yet anither thing that needs tae bae defined.

A Scottish Kilt is a Scottish Kilt.

I agree that a Scottish Kilt is a Scottish Kilt, but part of that definition, as described in the article, is that it MUST be hand sewn, and MUST be made from 100% wool, and there is nothing intrinsically Scottish about those two things. I would certainly call Howie's TFCK kilts Scottish, as they're made in Scotland, but if this definition is applied, this would not be allowed, since they're machine sewn, and not all of them are 100% wool.