Loch Lomond

Last, but not least, there is also a distillate called Old Rhosdhu, which was an unpeated single malt but now is the name used for the 100% malted barley mash which is distilled in their continuous stills. It is this spirit that caused an almighty row with the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA). Now, the SWA does an admirable job of policing whisky imports into the United Kingdom and makes sure that these whiskies are produced in-line with their regulations. Although the organisation has no legislative powers it has close links to the governments of both England and Scotland, and it is well versed in the dark arts of lobbying and can make life extremely difficult for those that cross it.

However, for all the good work that the SWA does, every now and then the organisation has what can only be called a monumental brain fart! Back in 2008 the distillery asked the SWA to consider a new whisky category for the 100% malted barley mash that it was distilling in its continuous stills. You would have thought that the SWA would have given this some deliberation and maybe asked for input from its members and the wider whisky community, but alas not. After about two weeks of this request sitting in someone’s in-tray the SWA decided that the distillation of a 100% malted barley mash in a continuous still could not be called malt whisky because this practice was not ‘traditional’. They went on to say that this form of distillate can only be called a ‘grain whisky’ but they would allow the distillery to state on the label that it had been made from 100% malted barley.

Dave Broom, in an article published on the Whisky Intelligence website in 2009 points out the huge flaws in the SWA’s arguments. He argued that this type of spirit, historically called a ‘silent malt’ was widely produced in Scotland in the 19th century. He claims that records show that it was made at grain distilleries such as Cameronbridge, Yoker and Glen Mavis. It was also produced at the North British distillery as late as the 1960’s.

Non scotch distillers making this form of spirit include Irish Distillers and Nikka in Japan. I would imagine that the reason this practice isn’t more widespread in Scotland is that barley is a lot more expensive than grains such as maize and wheat, which are ‘traditionally’ used for making grain whisky. However, what annoys me the most about the SWA’s intransigence is that they just didn’t listen. The Loch Lomond Distillery Company weren’t asking them to change their rules or definition of a Scottish malt whisky, we all know that a Scottish single malt whisky has to be produced from a mash of 100% malted barley, distilled in a ‘traditional’ copper pot still and aged for a minimum of three years in oak barrels. What they were asking for was the creation of a new category, such as a ‘Coffey Still Malt’ or a ‘Continuous Still Single Malt Whisky’ or at least the consideration of such a thing, but no, the SWA couldn’t even be bothered to give this any consideration whatsoever.

As far as I’m concerned, the SWA are using this idea of ‘tradition’ as a tool to suppress innovation in the Scotch whisky industry. I mean, what other reason could they have? Another case in point was the issue surrounding John Glazer’s custom built hybrid French/ American oak casks in 2005/6 for a botting Compass Box called Spice Tree. These casks were essentially American oak barrels which had the inner staves replaced with French oak staves. Now, there was nothing in the SWA’s rules to say that whisky couldn’t be matured in American or French oak, but because John Glazer thought outside of the box (sorry!) these hybrid casks were deemed un-traditional. Several years of wrangling ensued and finally a compromise was reached whereby Compass Box could use hybrid casks, but instead of having French oak inner staves, they were allowed to use French oak heads! Frankly, after all that you have to wonder what the point of this whole episode.