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.

[Bugbear]

... 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!

Because, Nighthawk, we don't live out there in the real world, we live in the world being created by our perceptions. Our perceptions are, in part, handed to us by our culture and families, etc. If we grow up thinking a kilt made in the U.S. is not a kilt, then in the world inside our heads, it is not perceived as a kilt.

You all can laugh at me all you want, but I have a ton of psychology books that discuss, except for the kilt, exactly that.

As to what the real world is... They haven't figured it out yet: QED or Strings.

[McClef]

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.

[Jordan]

How about having a label whith the ingrediants, ie
This kilt was made by ...
The cloth came from ...
Etc
If every kilt had to have that on it would stop the tartan tat and also places like mccalls using material from pakistan and having kilt factorys

[artificer]

One of the problems of "Honesty In Labeling" is that it is still very vague.

A 'tat' merchant could just as easily set up a mill, produce sub-standard fabrics, and have a sweatshop team factory-producing low budget kilts all in Scotland. By the label's definition, it's a Scottish Kilt, with materials made in Scotland, even "Hand Tailored".

Short of something extreme like the "Harris Tweed" label program, I think that the tat-shops will continue relatively unmolested no matter what is tried by the government.

[McClef]

If they did that they would still have to considerably increase their prices as there is a minimum wage In Scotland and the rest of the UK.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

One problem with trying to enforce a labeling scheme mandating that a "Scottish kilt" must be made in Scotland is that people increasingly have a much broader concept of just what a kilt is. So, while to you and me, a "kilt" automatically means the traditional Scottish garment, to others, "kilt" just means any kind of skirt-like garment worn by men.

And so people will speak of Egyptian kilts...


And Greek kilts...


And Roman kilts...


And American kilts...


And Irish kilts...


And then there is the Scottish kilt...


So, in this context, the term "Scottish kilt" would refer to the style of the garment, not the country of origin per se. One could make a kilt just like the ones pictured above in Scotland, England, France, America, Brazil, Australia, or the Moon and it would be a "Scottish kilt" (as opposed to any of the other above examples).

One may argue that the term "kilt" itself is a Scottish term and should not properly be applied to any of the other above garments, but that's a discussion for another day. However, right or wrong, in modern parlance, the generic term "kilt" is often used to describe non-Scottish garments.

However, I do think some kind of labeling scheme would go a long way towards informing the consumer. A simple "Made in Scotland" label would be easy to apply and show pride in Scottish craftsmanship. And if the kilt is not made in Scotland, just put in a label that tells where it is made. My own kilts have a tag that says "Crafted with pride in the USA." My labels also state "Made from 100% Scottish wool." So right there one has the information: where the cloth was woven; where the kilt was made.

I see no reason kilt makers would not want to put this information in their kilts unless they don't want their consumers knowing where the cloth is woven or where the kilt is made.

And here the burden lies on the consumer. Ask! If the kilt maker does not supply this information up front, ask for the details! Let them know that it is important to you to know this information and don't buy from someone who will not provide it. Eventually, they will get the message.

[MacLowlife]

Swiss cheese, French Fries, French Cuffs, Chinese Checkers, Canadian Bacon, English Toffee, French Toast, Oxford shoes, Oxford Cloth shirts, it is too early in the morning to think of them all. Any label regulation that falls short of outlawing any use of Scotland or Scottish or Scotch ( Butterscotch, there's another one) is going to be exploited. If you say "It has to be made entirely in Scotland to be called Scottish" they will simply call it Scotsman's or Clanwear, or McThrifty. In the words of Sylvain Sylvain, I think, you can't put your arms around a memory. And you can't contain all forms of reference to Scotland, kilts, and authenticity in a label small enough to attach to an 8 yard garment.

And, as we have established above, even if you could, you'd never get an agreement as to what it should say. I came into possession of a tat kilt for time. As I recall, it had three buckles on leather straps. The pattern of the acrylic fabric was Royal Stewart, in what appeared to be the correct sett. A blind man could be excused for not recognizing the tartan, but he or anyone else could have told you that it was not the same garment that Jock Scott wears, nor the same product that Matt Newsome, Barb Tewksbury, Lady Christel, and many other fine craftspeople produce. Jersey Lawyer hit it pretty well on the head- quality is usually obvious.

The Champagne people are spending a lot of that profit they made back during the millenium madness on promoting their definition of "champagne". It may be working. But when I go to Arby's for my Bacon n Swiss, I expect it to come from somewhere in North America.

[Draelore]

So, in this context, the term "Scottish kilt" would refer to the style of the garment, not the country of origin per se. One could make a kilt just like the ones pictured above in Scotland, England, France, America, Brazil, Australia, or the Moon and it would be a "Scottish kilt" (as opposed to any of the other above examples).

However, I do think some kind of labeling scheme would go a long way towards informing the consumer. A simple "Made in Scotland" label would be easy to apply and show pride in Scottish craftsmanship. And if the kilt is not made in Scotland, just put in a label that tells where it is made. My own kilts have a tag that says "Crafted with pride in the USA." My labels also state "Made from 100% Scottish wool." So right there one has the information: where the cloth was woven; where the kilt was made.

I find I agree with Matt's general premise. As a consumer (rather than a kilt maker) I appreciate knowing as much as possible about the garment that I am purchasing. So if I want a $69 wonder (you wonder how they possibly made it for that little) kilt that I can spill beer on and not cry I don't really care where it came from or who made it (and thats a good thing). If I want a $600 formal kilt I want to know that I am getting my monies worth, so kilt maker and origin of material is important to me

[RockyR]

The issue I take with articles like this (as others point out) is that a "kilt", BOILED DOWN is a tartan skirt with a flat apron in the front and pleats in the back. Cheap tat AND McCalls' kilts both fit that VERY basic description.

What I wouldn't mind (as a kiltmaker of "low end" AND "traditional" kilts), would be a designation of "Scottish Kilt" or something like that. However, I think that what's good for the goose if good for the gander. If Mr. Hawthorne wants the designation to include the things he stipulated, it should be EXCLUSIVELY Scottish and "traditionally" made.

Canuck of NI said it half in jest in his post (on page 1), but I agree with him. The kilt with such a designation SHOULD be:

1. All hand stitched (even the waistband).
2. Leather straps made of SCOTTISH raised cattle hide.
3. Wool tartan bought from a SCOTTISH mill (No Marton Mills or Batleys)
4. Cotton thread MANUFACTURED in Scotland
5. Buckles cast in Scotland
6. Sheep raised in Scotland and their wool sheared and spun and dyed IN Scotland (no Australia / New Zealand)
7. Dyes produced in Scotland
8. A traditional kiltmaker with X number of years apprenticeship and X number of years experience.

I think that if they're going to want the same kind of protection granted to Scottish Whiskey and Champaign, they should have ALL elements done locally, just like those industries do.

What I think is a bit hypocritical is the Scottish Kiltmaker arguing for "protectionism" using buckles and leather made in China. The Scottish Kiltmaker using cloth woven in an English mill. The Scottish Kiltmaker who uses a machine to sew the waistband while touting their traditional methods.

"Let him without sin cast the first stone" (sorry to get 'biblical', but it was the best quote I could think of). If you want to have protectionist status, make sure EVERY STEP of YOUR process will meet it. After all, we're talking about setting guidelines for top Scottish quality, right? Otherwise, tout your kilt quality like every other kiltmaker and get on with your business.