Sporran wearers may need licence
As an American of Scots descent who was married in a kilt, this makes me both angry and sad. How far one of the cradles of western civilization and freedom has fallen:
Kilt wearers could face prosecution if they do not have a licence for their sporran under new legislation which has been introduced in Scotland.
The laws are designed to protect endangered species like badgers and otters, whose fur used to be favoured by sporran makers.
What's really disturbing is the government officials who think nothing of threatening to take people's possessions if they do not obtain the new license, even though their possessions may be perfectly legal:
A Scottish Executive spokeswoman said the new rules had been put in place to bring Scotland into line with existing European legislation designed to protect vulnerable species.
"The licence will allow people who possess artefacts made from these species in circumstances compliant with earlier laws to keep them," she said.
"This could be family heirlooms of various descriptions.
"Having a licence for such an artefact, proving it was obtained legally, will ensure they will not be prosecuted or have it taken from them under the new regulations."
Perhaps we can start selling some new bumper stickers:
7.19.2007 at 10:23 AM
Unfortunately this story was absolute nonsense. If you would like to go to the site at Sporran Licences - The Truth it will give you a full explanation of the circumstances behind this legislation and shows up this BBC article as being absolute rubbish and scaremongering tactics to sell their news.
7.20.2007 at 8:17 PM
glengall1,
Thanks for the reference to your article. I'm afraid, however, that given that your article allows that some of the information provided by the BBC is correct, it's a bit misleading to refer to their piece as "absolute rubbish". Apparently it's true that a license will be required for possession of Sporrans made from the skins of certain protected species, even if the item was acquired long before the law was enacted. If that doesn't disturb you, well I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, but I find that yet another example of overly intrusive government.
Why on earth should someone who purchased an item that, at the time of purchase was perfectly legal, have to obtain a license to prove such? If anything, the burden of proof should be on the government, if they wish to impose such restrictions.
Still, looks like you've a nice site...I might stop by the next time I'm in the market for a Sporran. Here in the States, I can still get one without a license. ;-)