The Royal Mile

[Brian K]

From the article:

You noticed that, to, eh? Somebody needs to do better research!!

[McClef]

Yes that does sound too draconian as you say. I would favour a UK approach rather than a Scotland-only approach, though getting London on board with such a thing might be impossible.

For anyone that might be interested the original thread (now closed) is here http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...r-kilts-35061/

[Nick Fiddes]

Still a few legit Highland dress houses:

Couldn't agree more with your sentiments. But it's ironic you've included a picture of "John Morrison", since it's a venerable old name that's been... erm... how can I phrase this politely... bought up and cynically exploited by Messrs Singh, Singh, and Singh to punt their imported tat with a more upmarket label on it, presumably looking for yet another way to unfairly profit from other people's original work by siting themselves next door to Geoffrey. Don't be fooled by the presentation!

[Brian K]

In the other (closed) thread that McClef so graciously provided a link for, it was suggested that regulation (as that proposed by Howie Nicolsby) of what could or could not be called a Scottish kilt would cast a pall on non-Scottish kilt makers such as Matt Newsome, Barb Tewksbury, Kathy Lare, Lady Chrystel and many other fine craftsmen and women. That was a continued refrain there but since the thread was closed I couldn't respond.

I don't think it would matter a bit. If I understand correctly, wouldn't that sort of oversight or labeling restriction apply principally to those selling off the peg "tartan tat?" Where such rules are needed is wherever people (mainly tourists?) are buying good based on price rather than knowledge and who assume they're getting an authentic product. Someone who does the research and decides to buy a kilt made by Matt, Barb, Kathy or Chrystel is likely in a much better position to make a rational choice and are looking for quality of materials and workmanship rather than price or even origin. When you make that size an investment you're more likely to put some thought into it.

It's the poor guy or gal who says "Oooh..that 20 quid kilt would be a perfect souvenir of our trip to Edinburgh!" who needs protection.

Regards,

Brian

[wildrover]

...would cast a pall on non-Scottish kilt makers such as Matt Newsome, Barb Tewksbury, Kathy Lare, Lady Chrystel and many other fine craftsmen and women.

...

I don't think it would matter a bit. If I understand correctly, wouldn't that sort of oversight or labeling restriction apply principally to those selling off the peg "tartan tat?"

...

It's the poor guy or gal who says "Oooh..that 20 quid kilt would be a perfect souvenir of our trip to Edinburgh!" who needs protection.

Agreed 100% . I still would've bought my kilt from Robert MacDonald.

All they really need, probably, is a large indicator of country of origin, and "Scottish" and "kilt" only used together in certain circumstance. They could pass the law, and I'd still get a kilt Stateside...or in England (the horror! ) if I lived there...or whatever local or reasonably close source I could find.

[robthehiker]

It's the poor guy or gal who says "Oooh..that 20 quid kilt would be a perfect souvenir of our trip to Edinburgh!" who needs protection.

Regards,

Brian

Who's going to protect them from buying cheap cars, cheap wine, cheap food, etc.?

People who are spending 20 quid on a kilt would NOT buy a 250 quid hand-sewn 8 year kilt "if only someone were to educate and protect them".

[DougC]

I liked the article--alcohol and cheese have all regulated themselves (okay, cheese and alcohol don't regulate themselves--people regulate those items!). At the risk of bopping the noses of vendors here, a Scottish kilt should be made in Scotland with Scottish material...that is the gist of the article. But, by removing the country of origin, a kilt is still a kilt no matter where it is made.

[Nick Fiddes]

I think we're in danger of confusing two things here. One is country of origin. The other is quality and authenticity.

Personally, despite my perhaps having a vested interest in the 'protectionist' argument (because we make a point of selling almost exclusively things actually produced in Scotland) I'd be against saying a kilt had to be made in Scotland. For me Scotland and Scottishness is very much a global thing, and our community is made very much stronger by the international dimension. Many of the most active clans have their chiefs overseas, and many of the best pipe bands come from overseas, etc. etc. I see no reason to deny Scots abroad (which is a state of mind as much as a matter of blood) the right to pursue our national customs just as much as those who have stayed or come in the other direction.

Quality, however, is quite another matter. And by that I don't only mean quality of product, but also (without wishing to sound snobbish... bear with me) quality of person. My problem with the Singhs and their fellow tartan tat merchants is that in my view they have done more to destroy the real 'Heritage of Scotland' than any other people or events. By flogging badly made ladies' skirts made from flimsy inaccurate tartans and calling them "Scottish kilts" they are seriously undermining the true traditions that sustain us. And by ruthlessly copying (i.e. stealing) the original work of those who do honour our traditions (which include creatively reinventing them, as healthy traditions should always evolve) they have acted without the integrity that has been a traditional hallmark of the Scottish way of business, whilst destroying the incentive of the real artisans to innovate. I find that quite despicable. And it's nothing to do with commercial interest that I really do resent anyone shopping with them, and so supporting their activity.

This has nothing to do with racism. Scotland has always been a nation that welcomes incomers, and thrives on their contribution. In fact, ironically, I think it's likely their disreputable activities (which go way beyond copyright infringement) would have been more severely stamped upon years ago if the powers that be weren't terrified of being accused of such. So in effect they play the race card in their own favour. It's all about tradition, including the tradition of fair dealing and fair play that the Gold Brothers (who literally started as barrow boys) simply don't seem to care about one bit.

There have been mutterings recently from local politicians about trying to put a thumb in the tide of tartan tat on the high street. But without a much more serious effort to protect what remains of our centuries-old national reputation for high quality goods and services, I fear that the experience of so many visitors being met with such high profile evidence of utter rubbish wherever they look will soon destroy that longstanding and hard-earned economic trump card. If we had wise politicians capable of strategic thinking they would see that. But I can discern little evidence that any such understanding exists. Perhaps we get what we deserve.

[Radge]

Agree 100% Nick. These punters are parasites who devalue Scottish workmanship and culture.

[Peter C.]

I couldn't help smiling at some of the things I have read in this thread, because when I go shopping over here it is hard to find anything not made in China, and if you do find something not made in China, it will probably be made in the Banana Republic.

Peter