Scottish Tartans Authority publicly condemns kilt traditions

[Tobus]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...underwear.html

Wow. Disappointing.

It would be one thing if they stated that men should have the choice to break from tradition without feeling 'unScotsmanlike'. But no, they are blanketly condemning the tradition of wearing the kilt regimental style, calling it "childish and unhygienic". And while I agree that there can be hygiene issues for hire-shop kilts, I don't think it's fair for them to cast aspersions across the entire kilt-wearing world by saying that "common sense and decency" require wearing underpants.

(This issue made it all the way to our local TV news.)

[piperdbh]

I usually don't get worked up about or even comment on things like this that really have no law or penalty to enforce them, as it usually just stirs up arguments and does no good, but in this case, I agree with Mr. Wilton and the STA.

[wildrover]

What exactly is the problem with charging a fee for the damaged kilt? This is just another round of blanket nonsense from one segment of a niche industry, like the one a week or two back that stated kilts should only be made in Scotland and have three buckles, or whatever the last guy said.

There are hotels in America that provide underthings in the closet...if you open the package, you bought them. No big deal. If you open your package all over your kilt, or shovel some mud in the trench, you just bought the kilt. Is there some difficulty implementing this?

It might even give the industry a boost.

Let me know when the sky is done falling, also, let me know when the hire industry is done pushing their standards on everyone else.

"Here's your mostly black tartan with third buckle, scrunchy tie, thin white knee socks, fly plaid and Prince Charlie...have fun at the bar!"

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I haven't discussed the specifics of this newspaper story with Brian Wilton, so I'm not sure how it came about, but I do know how these things typically start. The STA's office phone will ring; Brian will answer, and there will be a newspaper reporter on the other end asking for an opinion on some question or issue regarding the kilt. Brian will give an opinion, and the next thing you know the "Scottish Tartans Authority has made an official pronouncement" on something.

Remember recently Brian spoke with a reporter and gave an estimate (which was given to him by a kilt maker) that perhaps only 10 kilt makers who had undergone a rigorous training via a traditional apprenticeship were still operating in Scotland. When it hit the press, however, it was "The STA" claiming there were only "10 authentic kilt makers" left in Scotland.

The press has a real knack for making a news story out of nothing.

I imagine what Brian Wilton was trying to do was simply to dispel the myth that one is not a "true Scot" unless he is going commando under his kilt, or that one is somehow less "authentic" if one chooses to wear underwear.

I always tell people it's really none of anyone's business what you are and are not wearing under your kilt, any more than it is what you choose to wear under your trousers. Just don't go about exposing yourself.

[macwilkin]

I haven't discussed the specifics of this newspaper story with Brian Wilton, so I'm not sure how it came about, but I do know how these things typically start. The STA's office phone will ring; Brian will answer, and there will be a newspaper reporter on the other end asking for an opinion on some question or issue regarding the kilt. Brian will give an opinion, and the next thing you know the "Scottish Tartans Authority has made an official pronouncement" on something.

Remember recently Brian spoke with a reporter and gave an estimate (which was given to him by a kilt maker) that perhaps only 10 kilt makers who had undergone a rigorous training via a traditional apprenticeship were still operating in Scotland. When it hit the press, however, it was "The STA" claiming there were only "10 authentic kilt makers" left in Scotland.

The press has a real knack for making a news story out of nothing.

I imagine what Brian Wilton was trying to do was simply to dispel the myth that one is not a "true Scot" unless he is going commando under his kilt, or that one is somehow less "authentic" if one chooses to wear underwear.

I always tell people it's really none of anyone's business what you are and are not wearing under your kilt, any more than it is what you choose to wear under your trousers. Just don't go about exposing yourself.

Well said! Let's not convene the Kangaroo Court just yet...

T.

[Tobus]

I imagine what Brian Wilton was trying to do was simply to dispel the myth that one is not a "true Scot" unless he is going commando under his kilt, or that one is somehow less "authentic" if one chooses to wear underwear.

I would like to think so, but when he uses words like "childish", he seems to be going a bit further. Unless the reporter just made that part up, it's hard to take a statement like that as anything but condemnation.

I completely understand the point about one man's opinion being misrepresented by a reporter as an official organizational statement. But if that's happened already in the past, then why doesn't Mr. Wilton keep his opinions to himself when he's answering the organizations telephone? If, for instance, a reporter called my office and asked me some questions, I would have to be fairly naive to think that my statements wouldn't be tied to my company. Know what I mean?

[ThistleDown]

I haven't discussed the specifics of this newspaper story with Brian Wilton, so I'm not sure how it came about, but I do know how these things typically start. The STA's office phone will ring; Brian will answer, and there will be a newspaper reporter on the other end asking for an opinion on some question or issue regarding the kilt. Brian will give an opinion, and the next thing you know the "Scottish Tartans Authority has made an official pronouncement" on something.

Remember recently Brian spoke with a reporter and gave an estimate (which was given to him by a kilt maker) that perhaps only 10 kilt makers who had undergone a rigorous training via a traditional apprenticeship were still operating in Scotland. When it hit the press, however, it was "The STA" claiming there were only "10 authentic kilt makers" left in Scotland.

The press has a real knack for making a news story out of nothing.

I imagine what Brian Wilton was trying to do was simply to dispel the myth that one is not a "true Scot" unless he is going commando under his kilt, or that one is somehow less "authentic" if one chooses to wear underwear.

I always tell people it's really none of anyone's business what you are and are not wearing under your kilt, any more than it is what you choose to wear under your trousers. Just don't go about exposing yourself.

[Chas]

There is such a thing as the 'under-kilt' - a couple of our more prominent members here wear them. Either they are like a slip with an elasticated waist (a separate garment) or are buttoned to the kilt, making them part of the same garment. Easily removed for cleaning.

I would have thought that the under-kilt would have been the ideal garment for the hire industry - if nothing else, they are softer than wool next to the skin. That is what the STA should be promoting - the compromise that is the best of both worlds.

Freedom, hygiene, ease of use and you don't alienate the reader.

Regards

Chas

[Curly]

hygiene...I agree with the idea of an under kilt sort of thing as it is with my long shirt under the Great Kilt. It's long enough to become a barrier twixt meself and the pleats.
Now that said, I also agree with Mr. Newsome it's no ones business what's up the kilt And for heavens sake, if one is out on the town in ones own or a hired kilt it might be reasonable to have a good wash of the courting tackle and adjoining terrain.

[wildrover]

Oh...that makes sense now, thanks Mac.

Suggestion...two questions...

"Are you a reporter?"

"Will this be on the record?"