Another protectionist kilt article from "The Scotsman"

[artificer]

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 and get on with your business.

This is exactly what I meant by the "Harris Tweed" style designation and label.

If the kilt is going to be Soooooooo precious, let's make sure it's justified.

[RockyR]

This is exactly what I meant by the "Harris Tweed" style designation and label.

If the kilt is going to be Soooooooo precious, let's make sure it's justified.

Completely agree. Let's not have a 90% Scottish Kilt. Let's make it 100% to DESERVE the designation. I'm not trying to dissuade people from creating a designation (like they would care what I think anyway), but would like to see a designation EARNED, not given for something "close enough".

[CMcG]

OK, so to qualify for an official "Scottish Kilt" designation:

1) Materials: 100% Scottish provenance
2) Methods: 100% traditionally made, by hand
3) Making: 100% made in Scotland


Is there a 4)? Perhaps "Style?"
Does it have to be approximately 8 yards, knife pleated, registered tartan, worsted wool?
Would an estate tweed kilt count?
Would a child's kilt not be eligible because of being lower yardage?
What about military box pleats?

What limiting factors could reasonably be included under "Style?"

[artificer]

OK, so to qualify for an official "Scottish Kilt" designation:

1) Materials: 100% Scottish provenance
2) Methods: 100% traditionally made, by hand
3) Making: 100% made in Scotland


Is there a 4)? Perhaps "Style?"
Does it have to be approximately 8 yards, knife pleated, registered tartan, worsted wool?
Would an estate tweed kilt count?
Would a child's kilt not be eligible because of being lower yardage?
What about military box pleats?

What limiting factors could reasonably be included under "Style?"

I think that for an adult male of reasonable proportions, ~8 yds would be the way to go. Children would have some equivalent average.

You'd have to allow for both knife pleats as well as military box pleats, as it would never do for the Scottish Regiments to be wearing "unScottish kilts".

I think the tartan would have to be registered. Tweed would NOT be allowed (it's too historical and NOT part of the current Tradition of Scottish kiltmaking.)

I'd like to see hand poured pewter buckles as well. No machine made allowed- even if said machine is IN Scotland.

And for heaven sake, DON'T leave off the lower right buckle or the kilt police WILL be around to investigate

You think all this is bad? Just wait until the SPORRAN police are formed

ith:

[JerseyLawyer]

And for heaven sake, DON'T leave off the lower right buckle or the kilt police WILL be around to investigate

And the Lord spake, saying, “First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.” — Monty Python

[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.

[Nighthawk]

And the Lord spake, saying, “First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.” — Monty Python

I think I just peed on myself just a little laughing!!

[robthehiker]

Ah, I never get tired of this topic.

Oh wait. Yes I do.

[kiltedwolfman]

I was thinking about the whiskey analogy and whenever I've gone to the liquor store and it might only be the ones here in BC, that every whiskey is located under one large sign that says "Scotch". There is no spererate area for whiskey from Scotland, and another for all the others. I think the implication is that a knowledgeable consumer can tell the difference, and make a choice based on their preference. I also think that when it comes to kilts, traditional or otherwise the same applies. I kilt is a kilt regardless of where it was made, or what it was made from just like trousers are trousers whether thay are are made in the USA, the UK, or some nasty little shop in Asia and I feel that the almighty dollar is of far greater concern to Mr. Hawthorne's argument then national pride.

Just to stir the pot a little more since I'm in the mood, tartan tat that sports a label that states "designed in Scotland" is not really trying to pass a false product. I think it might accurate to say that the designs were actually designed in Scotland. That label doesn't state "made in Scotland" but just that it was designed in Scotland. If I designed a tartan here in Canada ( which I have ) but had it woven and made into a kilt in Scotland would it be a less legitimate kilt? I could label it " A designed in Canada, woven in Scotland and made in Scotland kilt like garment".

[MacLowlife]

It being about whisky time here, I'd like to add a few points about the water of life, particularly as a surrogate for pleated menswear...As we all know, the stuff that comes out of the still is not Scotch whisky. It only becomes Scotch whisky after being stored for four years. Similarly, whiskey made in Japan or Canada or Kentucky is not Scotch, but the coarsest, cheapest Inver House blend is just as much Scotch as the 75 year old Reekie MacTurf in the original crock with the Harris Tweed sack and the authentic hand printed label made from the margins of MacLeay prints, tied on with authentic gut and ... well, you know- the stuff they put on the shelf you can't quite reach. And, as the true cognoscenti know, it is possible to get the same whisky bottled by more than one enterprise.

But here is where the analogy REALLY breaks down. Even the staunchest one tartan wearingest highlander will grant that more than a single glass is acceptable, maybe even from more than one bottle.

Two minds and a single malt? Och aye!