Another protectionist kilt article from "The Scotsman"

[CMcG]

What if there was some sort of set of qualifiers added to the word "kilt" or perhaps different terminology? Does anyone think that would satisfy Mr. Hawthorne?

In the same way as not-all whisky is Scotch, maybe a Scottish/Scotch/Scots Kilt would need to fit some version of Hawthorne's exacting standard of excellence. Anything else would be merely a kilt, with no additional designation.

Or some sort of banner sewn into the tag of kilt like we see in Canada on music CDs? The MAPL logo specifies the Canadian-ness of the origin of the music, artist, production, and lyrics by showing black with a white letter in each part of the pie if the song/CD qualifies. If some aspect doesn't qualify, it would be white with a black letter:


Or if a Hawthorne spec kilt was called by it's Gaelic name to differentiate it?

[Calico]

Scottish/Scotch/Scots Kilt

However, not even a majority of Scots would agree with Mr. Hawthorne's definition.

Therefore I think they would have to define it as a "Hawthorne Kilt" and any thing else as "authentic".

[Nighthawk]

OK, Nighthawk, let's get it right...Barb is located in New York! LOL

There are many great kilt makers the world over. Let's not say that a kilt can only come from Scotland.

I agree with many here, there's room for cheapo stuff, and quality. It's that way with everything!

Who's the lady in Albuquer... However It's Spelled, New Mexico? I could have sworn it was Barb...

[Jock Scot]

Who's the lady in Albuquer... However It's Spelled, New Mexico? I could have sworn it was Barb...

Would it be Cathy Lare(I think I have spelled it correctly) that you are thinking of?

[Nighthawk]

Would it be Cathy Lare(I think I have spelled it correctly) that you are thinking of?

That's the one!! Thank you. I couldn't pull her name out of my brain. So if I get a garment made by Cathy Lare, is it not a kilt because it's made in New Mexico? Would someone in the know be able to look at a Lare and tell that it's not made in Scotland?

So let's apply this logic to other things. There is a breed of cat that I think is rather beautiful called a Russian Blue. They originated in Siberia, hence the name. Here's what one looks like:



By the logic of this kilt maker, a Russian blue born on Colorado would not be a Russian blue, but something else. I'm at a loss as to how the geographical location of the creation of a thing changes it's basic nature. It's like my sister in law insisting that the kilt outside of Scotland is nothing but a skirt, and that men wearing them are cross dressers. By this same logic, a French poodle in Germany could become a German shepherd. I don't see how this works. It seems a lot like alchemy to me- lead can become gold because... well... I said so! This is not meant to be arguementative, although I know it sounds that way- I'm just trying to understand how a Lare, Newsome or Tewksberry is not a kilt simply because of where they're made!

Jock, you brought up the alcohols. That's different. The ingredients from the local environs plays a large part. Takisker is vastly different from Laphroig. One is from the Isle of Skye, and the other is from Islay. You can taste the difference because of what they are made from and the recipe. Sheep wool is sheep wool is sheep wool! (Granted there are sheep made for eating and sheep made for wearing!) Tartan woven in Denver, from modern dyes, is the same as tartan woven in Shetland from the same dyes! There's no genuine difference. The ingredients and weaving method are all the same. The chemicals in the dyes work the same, the looms work the same. The only difference is the geographical location in which the raw materials and equipment are located. Getting back to my cat analogy, how does the geographical location of the birth of a thing fundamentally alter it's basic nature? I'm trying really hard to understand... but I just don't get it!

[Jock Scot]

Nighthawk.


Take the same clan tartan from different mills and they will vary significantly in colour and even different runs of cloth from the same mill will differ in colour.Whisky from Scotland is allowed by law to be called "Scotch" whisky, whisky from anywhere else in the world is well---whisky. Sorry,the "whisky" analogy seems pretty logical to me, so it looks as though we are just going to have to agree to differ on this one.

[Nighthawk]

Nighthawk.


Take the same clan tartan from different mills and they will vary significantly in colour and even different runs of cloth from the same mill will differ in colour.Whisky from Scotland is allowed by law to be called "Scotch" whisky, whisky from anywhere else in the world is well---whisky. Sorry,the "whisky" analogy seems pretty logical to me, so it looks as though we are just going to have to agree to differ on this one.

So this all just about labeling the origin of the item in question? If that's the case, then we don't have to agree to disagree. We agree completely! When I make a leather item for someone, I make sure it's labeled as being made with pride in Colorado. It's the whole subject of refusing to call it a kilt if it's made in America that gets me! So from the standpoint of accurate and honest labeling, I agree completely!

I totally agree with Jock about the labelling issue - the retailers of the "tartan tat" end should be forced to stop using the misleading "authentic highland tartan designed in Scotland" labels and to declare origin and material composition upon them instead.

But Mr Hawthorne does not appear to be asking for this - he is seeking to define what is a Scottish kilt which is a very different issue.

I have long argued that a labelling standard would go a long way to solving many of the perceived problems without creating new ones.

Yeah, that I totally agree with. "Designed in Scotland" is a very misleading label.

[Jordan]

How about having a label whith the ingrediants, ie
This kilt was made by ...
The cloth came from ...
Etc
If every kilt had to have that on it would stop the tartan tat and also places like mccalls using material from pakistan and having kilt factorys

[artificer]

One of the problems of "Honesty In Labeling" is that it is still very vague.

A 'tat' merchant could just as easily set up a mill, produce sub-standard fabrics, and have a sweatshop team factory-producing low budget kilts all in Scotland. By the label's definition, it's a Scottish Kilt, with materials made in Scotland, even "Hand Tailored".

Short of something extreme like the "Harris Tweed" label program, I think that the tat-shops will continue relatively unmolested no matter what is tried by the government.