Another protectionist kilt article from "The Scotsman"

[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.