Another protectionist kilt article from "The Scotsman"

[artificer]

It's a bit funny, really. On one hand we have "Group A": people whinging that the kilt is a rarity, a garment for weddings and other 'special occasions' (and in many cases, rented).

On the other hand we have our protectionist Mr. Hawthorne, who I will place in Group B: those would like to see the kilt relegated to hand-made and costing $850 or more- thereby ensuring it REMAINS a garment out of reach of most of the Scottish public.

I wonder if Mr. Hawthorne is a group A/B complainer, and whines about the kilt becoming extinct WHILE at the same time whining that all the tat is reducing the grandeur of the kilt? In my experience GRAND usually equals EXPENSIVE.

If people want the kilt to stay alive, it has to be affordable. I think there's probably room for the tat alongside the treasure.

[Monkey@Arms]

It appears that Mr. Hawthorne belongs to the school that says kilts are for special occasions only, and should stay that way. (Well he is in the kilt rental business too, afterall.)

From the McCall's website:

The kilt has now become the accepted alternative dress wear for formal occasions rather than a practical garment. It is most commonly worn at weddings and formal functions, and is acceptable on occasions where one would wear a dinner suit or tuxedo.

Emphasis mine.

Best regards,

Jake