So if the little kilt evolved over a period of years across the Highlands, where does this leave the Rawlinson story? There are actually several versions of this, amongst the most common being:-
1) Rawlinson invented the little kilt round about 1725 and compelled his workforce to wear it.
Now, if you’re willing to believe that Rawlinson could force a group of Highland lumberjacks, for that is what they were, to cut their kilts in half simply because he said so then I’m sorry, you are obviously a candidate for membership of the Flat Earth Society – they’d have been far more likely to have cut Rawlinson in half!
2) A passing army tailor noticed Rawlinson and his lumberjacks at work and suggested that separating the great kilt into a kilt/plaid combination would be less cumbersome.
This version is a bit too reliant on a coincidental meeting for my liking, but this time it would be more likely the tailor who got halved!
3) Rawlinson had seen the little kilt worn elsewhere, and persuaded his lumberjacks to adopt it.
A definite possibility, but relies heavily on Rawlinson’s powers of persuasion on getting his lumberjacks to try it on the basis that it was already worn elsewhere without chopping him up! Nevertheless, this version would rightly give Rawlinson the credit for introducing the little kilt to this particular part of the Highlands.
4) The lumberjacks wore the little kilt from the outset, having come from a part of the Highlands where it had already been introduced and were aware of its benefits.
Again a definite possibility. If this was the first instance of the little kilt being worn in this area then it would be quite natural for Ivan Baillie, the author of the letter on which the whole Rawlinson story is based, to write that this was the first instance he had seen it and erroneously ascribe the credit to the man in charge, Rawlinson. It has to be remembered that at the time of writing this letter, he must have been in his 70s (a VERY old man for that period) and writing about something he had seen some 40yrs before.

Which, of course, brings us to the letter from Ivan Baillie, the single source on which the whole Rawlinson story is based. Those who accept it at face value are almost equally divided between versions 3 and 4, the final choice really coming down to one of personal preference as there’s little further evidence one way or the other.

There is, however, a slowly growing group which is beginning to suspect an early attempt at government disinformation, the main question being WHY would a man who would be in his 70s (which was VERY old for that time) suddenly write to a newspaper about something he claims to have seen 40odd years before, and only about 3yrs after the end of Proscription?

The Act of Proscription had actually had the opposite result to that intended and immediately it was ended kilts/tartan became very popular with and widely worn by all classes of Lowlanders (the majority group), whereas before it had been confined to the Highlands and the poor. This new theory suggests that the UK government of the day became worried as it saw this as an upsurge in Scottish nationalism and a possible threat to the Union, and it came up with the plan that a good way to put the Scots off this new widespread interest in kilts would be to get a respectable Scotsman to spread the story that it had been invented by an Englishman! The supporters of this theory like to emphasise that the letter author is always described as “being of good character”, which in those days meant a supporter of the government and the Union – ie “those who are with us are the good guys and those who are against us are the bad guys” – sound familiar???