Hands Aff Oor Kilts!

[BoldHighlander]

The standard applied could be as simple as "kilts will be made up from not less than five yards of tartan fabric containing not less than 60% wool content, whose workmanship is consistent with the quality of other products licensed and approved by the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs".

*IF* something like this were to come about I think 4 yards should be the minimum. Otherwise some very fine box pleat kilts made by Matt Newsome (& others I dare say) would be out by a yard (or less)

[Big Homestead]

While there at it, they should copyright big stupids. Then the only people that could have real stupid people would be the ones that also have the only "real" kilt.

[McClef]

As I said M.O.R., it's worth an approach on the grounds of the numbers of clan tartans sold.

Approval of tartans is already within the remit of the individual Chiefs (and Gold Bros. can claim that they are selling approved tartans!) but here we are looking for what would be a label of approval as meeting the description of a Scottish kilt and one upon which they can all agree.

If successful, it could be a pointer regarding legislation upon misleading labelling also.

[SteveB]

Gentlepeople,
Those of us on XMTS have expressed a large range of opinion on many threads as to what constitutes a kilt. Having hand sewn a denim kilt, pleated and assembled by the AoKM book, I refer to it as my American kilt following Scottish design. I wear it proudly, even though it is not wool, not tartan, not made in Scotland. I am not very far away from ordering the weaving of some genuine Scottish wool for a hand sewn kilt in my clan tartan. This kilt will be for the special events wear. I will still use my other kilts for everyday wear.
I do not consider my many hours of hard work hand sewing a kilt to be "tat", nor do I claim it to be a Scottish kilt.
If the quality kilt makers want to band together and use a standard label, that would work real well - if it is ONE standard label. Chisholm uses a different label than the guild, and as such adds confusion that can only aid the tat purveyors.

[davedove]

I am aware of the intended purpose (as I have stated in several of my posts) but thank you for pointing out again.

My concern is, that while good-intentioned, such actions might accidently include reputable overseas firms and kiltmakers, unless a better solution, such as Rathdown's suggestion, is considered.

T.

I completely agree with your concern Todd. And it doesn't even have to be an overseas firm. A Scottish kiltmaker could fulfill all the requirements except one, and would then not qualify.

We see this all the time when laws are written. Sometimes a law is written quickly as a knee-jerk reaction to a situation, and then must be redone later because it wasn't thought through enough and they unintentionally restricted someone they hadn't thought of.

[auld argonian]

We see this all the time when laws are written. Sometimes a law is written quickly as a knee-jerk reaction to a situation, and then must be redone later because it wasn't thought through enough and they unintentionally restricted someone they hadn't thought of.

...consider the Tartan Proscription Act as an example.

Best

AA

[McClef]

...consider the Tartan Proscription Act as an example.

Best

AA

On the contrary, that was a very deliberate thing - the only exceptions were to be military:

"That from and after the First Day of August 1747, no man or boy within that part of Great Britain called Scotland, other than such as shall be employed as Officers and Soldiers of His Majesty's Forces, shall on any pretext whatsoever, wear or put on the clothes, commonly called Highland clothes (that is to say) the Plaid, Philabeg, or little kilt, Trowes, Shoulder-Belts, or any part whatever of what peculiarly belongs to the Highland Garb; and that no tartan or party-coloured plaid or stuff shall be used for Great coats or upper coats, and if any such person shall presume after the first said day of August, to wear or put on the aforesaid garments or any part of them, every person so offending.... shall be liable to be transported to any of His Majesty's plantations beyond the seas, there to remain for the space of seven years."

But I can think of other examples such as The Dangerous Dogs Act when many innocent dogs were affected and the Firearms Act following Dunblane which ended up affecting people engaging in shooting competitions for the UK.

The tendency of the application of ill defined legislation is to err on the side of caution whereas the above made everything perfectly clear and in that sense, however Draconian, it was well drafted.

[sharpdressedscot]

so, maybe they should look at both sides before they do anything??

[McClef]

so, maybe they should look at both sides before they do anything??

There would be nothing wrong in draft legislation being produced and circulated for representations.

Making regulations regarding accuracy and labelling truthfulness in labelling and advertising of kilts shouldn't really be that complicated a thing to do and if the Chiefs do not feel able to engage in M.O.R.'s suggestion they could at least be a party for consultation. It's people being given the information to make an informed choice and any seals of approval as well are an added bonus.

What the kilt material is, where it is woven, where it is made up, hand or machine, sewn, are simple statements that criticise or exclude nobody. Other endorsements are not a legal requirement but still nice to have.

We see it in so many other areas already where labelling gives detailed information and then they will advertise recommendations from various bodies or magazines. What works for electronics, cars, washing powder, food etc. can surely work for Scottish kilts.

[Makeitstop]

I think you can have all the certifications and seals of approval you like, as well as the strictest of labeling laws, and it won't make much difference.

People who are buying cheap acrylic kilts either do so knowingly (like me and many other customers of stillwater) and therefore would not change their minds because they are getting no new info, or they are totally unaware that what they are getting is a knockoff, in which case it is unlikely they will know that somewhere there is a much nicer and more expensive kilt that has some seal of approval and can use numerous terms which are delicately tiptoed around on the cheap kilt's label.

Unless you either require cheap kilts to bear the term "piece of crap" (or some other sabotage in label form) or put up billboards all along the mile explaining that kilts without the seal and "scottish kilt" label are actually cheap pakistani pseudo-kilts and and that they should be avoided because yadda yadda yadda, most uninformed gold brothers customers will probably never know no matter how many rules and regulations there are.