Another protectionist kilt article from "The Scotsman"

[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!