I am frustrated by what I see as the tendency to turn any criticism of these "tartan-tat" kilts into a debate over whether or not there is a place in the market for inexpensive kilts.

Of course there is a place for inexpensive kilts. I don't think anyone is arguming to the contrary.

The main issue that most of us in the tartan industry have about these Godl Brothers kilts is the way they are marketed. Look at the labels. They say "authentic woven material" and "designed in Scotland."

If that same label said, "100% acrylc" and "made in Pakistan," then I don't think anyone would have a reason to complain. But nowhere does it say that.

Correct me if I am wrong, Dr. Nick, but nowhere on that kilt does it mention the actual fibre it is made of, correct?

Acrylic flares up and acrylic melts and this can be very dangerous to any wearer around open flames. As others have pointed out, other man made fibres suffer from the same problems. Does this mean all man made fibres should be banned? Of course not. But it means that at the very least they should be properly labelled.

And I'm surprised that no one has picked up on the fact that this was a children's kilt being tested. As a father of four small children, this concerns me greatly. Grabbing severl items of my children's clothing at random, most of them are 100% cotton. I did find one that was 100% polyester but it specifically said on the label "flame resistant." My point is, though, that by labelling the products I, as a parent, can be aware of any potential risks to my child's safety.

But please, let's not turn this into an "is there a place for inexpensive kilts" argument. Yes, there is. But that is not what this is about.