Sardious, thanks. That's the whole point some seem to have missed. I agree with points of the article but there are limits to the description that even I disagree with. As before, yes there are many variations of the " KILT " but as long as the brand or reference to it as a casual or even hiking kilt is utilised I see no problem as that is being descriptive enough to be quite clear that it is not a " SCOTTISH KILT " I don't like the idea though of dropping the name " SCOTTISH KILT " when the cloth is purchased from a Scottish Mill and made to the exact same standards as one which would be made there. ( Especially if the kiltmaker is of Scottish birth ) as opposed to some store in Scotland using a Machinist or dressmaker (not specifically a trained kiltmaker ) and still being permitted to call it a " SCOTTISH KILT ".
It's a knee jerk reaction to the stuff being sold on E-BAY and other cheap knock off type goods. I understand the reasoning and the impact it is having on the industry in Scotland but if they are going to sell the cloth oversea's and we are to continue paying the high costs and the duties on it I see no good coming from this. Let the true kiltmakers here continue to use the " Scottish " description as long as they maintain the standards. It's the customer who will be the one who suffers in the long run, after all why pay the high costs for an item that can't be called SCOTTISH simply because it's finished in another country. Failing to do this will result in customers and kilt makers looking at alternate sources for cloth. Sales in Scotland will ultimately drop and the " MILLS " will be the one's to bear the drop in sales followed by a price increase to those in Scotland who will in turn have to bear the costs of an industry whose market gets smaller and production costs will therefore rise.
-- AWBOS (bas1-barrie18-1242380505.dsl.bell.ca) -- 3/12/08 13:47