This again must be contentious!

There has been some lighthearted comments in the British Press about the idea of President Bush wearing a kilt to the summit at Gleneagles: and his stating that he would not be wearing one.

In today's Times there is a letter from Lady Bowman, who states:

>With respect Mr Bush has no choice. The right to wear a kilt belongs to men who have a hereditary right to wear the tartan from which the kilt is made [exceptionally, some regimental kilts are made of plain tweed]. As far as I know, Mr Bush has no right to a tartan.<

I well appreciate that this is a view that will not be shared by many members of this forum, and which contradicts many pundits and books on the subject.

However it substantiates what I've mentioned before: that despite everything to the contrary be it written or stated with authority, or even what might be said to an individual's face: there are many who do take the right to wear a named tartan very seriously indeed.

This suggests that for those without such a right, it might be better to look to say an area or one of the many other tartans which are not associated with a particular clan name. If only in the interest of not one day being faced with an embarrassing, humiliating even, situation.

To turn the whole matter on it's head-when I recently bought a new kilt, I browsed through many tartans-and was greatly tempted by the appearance of the Confederate one: but not having the slightest claim to it-I turned instead to my own family tartan. So this goes both ways, too I know my views are shared by many.

James