The Royal Mile

[Brian K]

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.

Thanks for your perspective, Nick. As I read this thread, and the original thread dealing with Howie Nicholsby's proposed legislation, I thought of you because you have mentioned your concerns about such things to me before, if not in this depth and detail. It has to be tough to compete in business with people whose product is so inferior they can offer it at a price the uneducated feel they can't resist.

That being said, how do you envision tackling this problem? Is there a legislative or regulatory approach you think would be practical? Is EU involvement necessary or would Scottish and British legislation be sufficient? How much would you depend on education of the public and how could it be accomplished without coming across as snooty or snobby? There are those who see appeals to quality standards as an attempt to shut out anyone other than the upper crust.

As I read this I know it could come across the wrong way, but I don't mean to challenge or push you. Indeed I am genuinely interested in your answers to these questions because I know you must have thought about them. A man with your long experience in the business and your academic background must be in a unique position to understand all aspects of this problem. If my tone has not sounded as I intended, please know I am asking as a concerned friend.

Regards,

Brian

[tyger]

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

Right you are: going shopping will probably result in finding mass-produced things that are mass-marked to masses who can't be bothered to look for the things that are made right here, under our very own noses!

USA made items are easy enough to find, but you have to get off the beaten path, away from the crowd.

Matt Newsome has put together a page that shows a selection of artisan-crafted (not "hobby") goods that the Scottish Tartans Museum Gift Shop offers for sale: http://http://giftshop.scottishtarta...collection.htm

[Nick Fiddes]

That being said, how do you envision tackling this problem? Is there a legislative or regulatory approach you think would be practical? Is EU involvement necessary or would Scottish and British legislation be sufficient? How much would you depend on education of the public and how could it be accomplished without coming across as snooty or snobby? There are those who see appeals to quality standards as an attempt to shut out anyone other than the upper crust.

This is indeed a topic to which I've given much thought. And really I don't think there's one single answer, not least because as I remarked earlier there is more than one overlapping issues involved, which I'll address one by one. And whilst I do think the racism issue is a big red herring, there are real issues like EU anti-protectionism legislation and governmental duty to be commercially even-handed (supposedly) that must be allowed for.

Since this discussion began by talking about the Royal Mile in Edinburgh, I personally think that should be a special case. If tourists want to spend twenty quid to look silly in a schoolgirl's skirt, that's fine by me. But I'd like to see this particular street protected from it, due to its special status as the very heart of Scottish heritage. If the political will existed, that would be as simple as setting up a special planning zone, as Councils up and down the land have done, with rules about activities permitted within it. Then you write detailed rules dictating the quality threshold for retail in the area, and punitively tax exceptions. Easy.

Regarding tartan design, I'm actually due to take part in a special meeting a month or two hence as a member of the Tartan Register steering group, where we'll be discussing whether stricter guidelines are needed for what can be registered. I'd like to leave my comments at that meanwhile, as I don't want to prejudice any positions.

Regarding tartan fabric weaving, the situation currently is that there are a few big mills (and a handful of smaller ones) in Scotland who produce the bulk of the designs available. There are also a few weavers in North America producing good quality in a more limited choice. Plus there are mills in Asia and elsewhere churning out low quality fabrics in a few designs that have little commitment to historical accuracy etc. (Sorry if anyone feels left out by this synopsis.) Whilst I recognise there's an argument for full 'protection' along the same lines of champagne or cheeses, I'd like to see Scottish tartan positively identified by means of a quality mark scheme, certifying the fabric's origins. This would still enable overseas producers to weave tartan fabrics, but would help preserve the cachet of the domestic original.

Regarding kilt making, I think it's perfectly possible to identify a few key characteristics of a properly made kilt that could be applied evenly and fairly internationally. And I think this could and should be enshrined in law. Some of the advocates of this approach are so strict they'd like to outlaw garments like the casual kilt, which I understand but believe is misguided. (After all, the kilt began as simply a length of cloth slung around the body, more or less...) But by requiring a set of fair criteria governing pleating, sett balance, etc. I think you could shut out the tartan tat rip-offs whilst still enabling the tradition to breathe and evolve.

The most contentious issue on my last point is probably fabric. At Scotweb we ourselves do offer a polyviscose kilt option, mostly for those allergic to wool. And I know many people on this forum find plastic kilts perfectly acceptable (I myself own three cotton kilts in various designs and a leather one). But I think on balance I'd prefer to see the kilt defined as pure new wool, and anything else be called 'kilted...' in the same was as in the UK there's a legal distinction between a food being 'flavour' (made from) or 'flavoured' (tasting a bit like). However, this will presumably stir up a flame war from those who disagree with me. So I'll step back from the blue touchpaper now and accept that if such legislation were ever brought forward that issue would be decided after full and free debate.

[OC Richard]

I think the potential trouble in enforcing a quality-based standard (rather than country of origin standard) is the difficulty of defining exactly what would be permissible.

California went through this a number of years ago when its legislature banned "assault weapons". Seems that "assault weapons" are like pornography: everyone knows it they see it, but defining it in clear legal terms is very tricky.

An article I read not too long ago said that the EU currently protects many such things. For example, no one can sell Parmesan cheese unless it's actually made in Parma, or wine called Burgundy that's made anywhere but Burgundy etc.

Maybe this name-based approach couldn't work, but to apply it to Highland Dress would mean that unless it's made in Scotland it can't use the word kilt in its title. I would think that this could apply to sporran as well, and perhaps also to Highland and Scottish.

I suppose then the Indian subcontinent stuff would be called "man skirts" and "man skirt purses" etc etc and they would continue to sell it all the same, which is why I favour a ban on the actual items being imported for resale.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Maybe this name-based approach couldn't work, but to apply it to Highland Dress would mean that unless it's made in Scotland it can't use the word kilt in its title. I would think that this could apply to sporran as well, and perhaps also to Highland and Scottish.

I suppose then the Indian subcontinent stuff would be called "man skirts" and "man skirt purses" etc etc and they would continue to sell it all the same, which is why I favour a ban on the actual items being imported for resale.

That is just one reason why the above scheme would not work. Another is that it would needlessly punish good, quality expert kilt makers. Think about Barb Tewksbury in NY, or Kathy Lare in NM, or any other good North American kiltmaker.

I am a kilt maker myself, and even I had Barb T. make a kilt for me, because I was so impressed with the quality of her work (among other reasons). I can honestly say it is just as good as, if not better than, the bulk of Scottish-made kilts I have seen.

To suggest that a Barb Tewksbury kilt be called a "man skirt" because of what amounts to an accident of goegraphy is laughable.

You could say the same thing about sporrans. Does anyone honestly think that businesses such as L&M (in Nova Scotia), or crafters such as Ferguson Britt (In GA), would deign to call their products "man purses"?

I know your suggestion was meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there are those who seriously advocate for a geography-based criteria on what is and is not a kilt. I sympathize with their reasons for wanting some form of protection, but I don't think geography could ever be a defining factor. Not without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I do think a requirement that all garments be labelled with their country of origin is a good idea. That way the consumer has the choice as to buy a kilt, sporran, jacket, etc., made in Scotland, or Canada, USA, Pakistan or India. There would be no attempt to defraud anyone by suggestion that an item was "genuinely Scottish" when it is anything but -- which is, I believe, one of the major issues of concern.

[ForresterModern]

I don't think the idea of a country specific trademarked type item is at all that difficult as Matt describes. Country of origin should be labelled without doubt. But having a legal description of a "scottish kilt' be defined as made of scottish origin fabric and manufactured in Scotland is as easy as restrictions on burgundy wine, Stilton cheese, Roquefort cheese, etc... Others making a similar item can describe theirs withn the "law" as scottish style or scottish design and list the origin of fabric and site of actual manufacture on a well defined label. I don't think that would diminish the quality or cache of a Newsome or Tewksbury kilt in the least, although it might require a bit more specific description on their labels. Stilton, Roquefort, and Gorgonzola cheese are very similar if not the same, except for site of origin---but Blue/bleu cheese is a generic term used for basically the asme thing but not specifically produced in one of those specific places. Something can still be a "kilt", manufactured of scottish tartan but in any place in the world other than Scotland, just not be called a "scottish kilt". It seems nit-picking, but some definition of terms and site of origin both of materials and labor/manufacture are reasonable and should be required on labelling, especially of mass produced items. A true craftsman making quality goods out of quality material would have have it recognized as such by those to whom it matters, and I do not think a tag with Barb T's name describing an american made kilt of scottish made tartan would in any way deter someone from buying it or calling it a kilt.

One man's (remote) opinion.

j

[ForresterModern]

Nick

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the John Morrison Kiltmaker shop on Prince's Street until it recently relocated to the Royal Mile, presumably to take advantage of that previously venerated name?

jeff

[Nick Fiddes]

Nick

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the John Morrison Kiltmaker shop on Prince's Street until it recently relocated to the Royal Mile, presumably to take advantage of that previously venerated name?

jeff

Erm... dunno! I have a feeling the real firm had a store in Glasgow, but I just don't recall where in Edinburgh. Sorry. Anyone else?

[Radge]

Aye, the shop was originally on Princes Street.

[ForresterModern]

I just unpacked my suitcase after a three day trip, and just for grins decided to check the tags on each piece of clothing I had in my dirty laundry as well as what I did not wear. With the exception of socks, all items had a label which included the composition of the fabric, as well as the country of manufacture. None listed country of origin for any of the fabrics though, just country of manufacture. This included pants, shirts, underwear, pajamas, swim suit, shoes, sweater, sweatshirt, and jacket.

Sorry to threadjack. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.