We were delighted to receive the usual 8pm-after-three-drams release from our old friends at ‘The Laddie’ (© The Laddie)
“Once again proving that there is nothing which a maverick independent progressive Hebridean distiller (© The Laddie) can do, today we can anounce [sic] that I have today invented a device which will take whisky production ‘back to the future’ [© The Laddie]. Today I instructed Duncan to insert a large pole into a hole which had been drilled in a circular piece of wood, which I have called a roulette [(© The Laddie). This was then fixed on the to the base of a large packing case fitted with a cushioned seat making it easier for the staff to push me around the yard. Here is further evidence that “thinking outside the box” [© The Laddie] is what we do best here at Bruichladdich. We have created a new bottling to commemorate this invention.”
This was followed (one dram later) by another missive from the same source in which it was revealed that the “maverick independent progressive..” etc etc distiller had stumbled across a new way of creating whisky brands. Called the multi-vintage method it involves taking whiskies of different ages and mixing them together to produce a final cuvee.
“The concept was originally inspired by Champagne’s Remi Krug: “With a single vintage, it is God who decides on the quality. But with a multi-vintage, I am God.”
The SWR is amazed that the whisky industry has survived this long without such an incredible innovation. We expect the multi-vintage cuvee to be the next great development in the whisky industry. You heard it here first.

NEWS reaches us that Diageo’s revelation that it is to wrap all of its 8 million barrels in Tesco cling film [Sunday Post Fun Pages, July 15, 2008] has resulted in the Angels Union recommending strike action to its members. It is estimated that 47 percent of the Scottish whisky angels workforce will be affected by Diageo’s decision. Saint Seryn, the patron saint of distilling, is understood to already have been interceding with ‘Doctor’ Paul Walsh regarding the matter.
“This reckless decision won’t simply affect our members,” claims Angel Alfred Wortte, secretary of the Celestial Host and Ancillary Miracle Workers Union (Whisky Division). “Most of them have up to have 100 cherubim and seraphim to support. The ramifications are enormous. This announcement has come out of the blue. Who do they think they are? God?” Mark Reynier was not available for comment.

Funny thing tradition. Seems to mean different things to different people. Finishing, for example, is ‘traditional’ despite being an innovation which started in the 1990s. Making malt whisky in a column still isn’t traditional despite having been a technique used since the 19th century. Let me explain.
Two weeks ago, Loch Lomond Distillers asked the SWA to consider creating a new category for malt whisky made in continuous stills. As it makes such a product this seems worthy of debate. The SWA rejects this, as the technique “does not... reflect traditional Scotch Whisky distillation and practice."
This strikes me as strange. Historical records show that so-called 'Silent Malt' was widely made in the 19th century. Cameronbridge, Yoker and Glenmavis distilleries all produced such a spirit and there's evidence that the practise was common elsewhere. In 1913, Nettleton refers to: “Patent-still all-malt whisky, as made at one or two distilleries, may claim the title ‘whisky’ with the qualifying description.”
Neither was the technique restricted to the 19th century. George Christie produced this type of whisky from a continuous still at his North of Scotland distillery until the 1960s and, obviously, Loch Lomond continues to do so. Both Irish Distillers and Nikka are currently making whiskies of this style… outwith the Scotch Whisky Act of course, but evidence that this isn't just a one-off. Coffey Malt may be unusual, but it has solid historical precedent.
I wrote to the SWA for clarification and they, speedy and polite as ever, responded, highlighting a sub-clause in the new regulations which states that malt whisky can only be made in pot stills, a change from the current regs.
What then, I wonder idly, is the legal definition of a pot? Is a Lomond still, for example a pot? Is a pot still with a rectifying column attached a pot? “We’ve looked at them,” came the response, “and they’re considered to be pots. Loch Lomond is however producing from column stills and that’s outwith the new regulations.” They then added that though Loch Lomond will have to call its product grain whisky, it would be allowed to state on the label that it was made from 100% malted barley. Reasonable enough?
Well... maybe we should read on:
“Patent stills have been used since the mid 19th century – what is not traditional is that Scotch Whisky produced from such a still should be described and/or sold to customers as Single Malt Scotch Whisky [which is] a recognised trade description with a particular reputation. Whether or not Mr Christie distilled a malt mash in a continuous still in 1960 and whether or not such a practice was known in the 19th century is neither here nor there.
“But for the new Regulations, the fact that some of the ‘Single Malt’ being distilled by Loch Lomond since 2005 is from a continuous still would never have become public – it certainly isn’t mentioned on their web-site. The new Regulations are needed to prevent precisely this sort of thing going on behind the scenes.
“The requirement to adhere to traditional practice arises out of EU Regulations, hence the use of the term. Just because something has happened a couple of times in the past does not make it a traditional means of producing Single Malt Scotch Whisky in 2008.”
Is this double-think? The EU requires you to adhere to traditional practise, but despite this having been a technique used continuously (pardon the pun) since the 19th century it isn’t traditional? This production technique didn’t happen ‘once or twice’, but was an accepted practise which, though not widely used, was and still is part and parcel of the making of Scotch Whisky. In other words it is part of the tradition.
Given this, there is greater historical precedent in the distillation of 100% malted barley in a patent/column still than there is around finishing. I can find no reference in any historical documents about distillers using Sauternes casks (etc) in the production of their whiskies. I can, however, find plenty of evidence of them making ‘Coffey malt’! If tradition is to be used a legal grounding for these regulations then it must be used in a consistent and equable fashion. That isn’t the case here.
The SWA also argued that one reason for rejecting Loch Lomond’s submission was that “one of the aims is to produce a lighter spirit which matures more quickly. You can imagine the implications for small traditional malt whisky distilleries if such a product was able to use the Single Malt description.”
Now, “quicker-maturing” whisky has been the holy grail of every distiller (or at least their accounts departments) for decades. If distillers find a way of creating a mature whisky at 3 years of age then what is to stop them? Or is this suggesting that single malt should have a different minimum age? Are the 3yo malts used in blends not mature?
It’s an open secret that experiments are ongoing to try and find ways of accelerating the interactive process. The fact that continuous stills might make a quicker maturing whisky can’t be an argument for not allowing the “Coffey Malt”.
It transpires however that the real reason for the rejection of the 6th definition might be down to finance. “Installing a continuous still in an existing Single Malt distillery is for all intents and purposes a shortcut to increase capacity without the expense of installing new pot stills. (We understand, for example, that the single continuous still used by Loch Lomond for distilling malt mash has an output equivalent to six pot stills.)” So, the reason this was rejected was because it saved money? The SWA logic was that if Coffey Malt could be defined as a single malt then all distillers would scrap their pots, install columns and make this lighter variation on the theme. Fact is, Loch Lomond didn’t want to call their malt single malt whisky, which would potentially cause confusion, but wanted a new designation for this specific method of production.
I felt obliged to ask whether the SWA’s remit now extended to controlling firms’ financial decisions? “The simple answer is no. We are not making any attempt to control financial decisions and, as you are aware, we cannot do so. There is nothing to stop the building of patent stills and distilling a malt mash in them. Our point is the resultant spirit cannot be described as Single Malt Scotch Whisky for reasons explained.” But that’s not what was said and the logic behind the other reasons [ie the lack of tradition etc] strike me as being fundamentally flawed.
This one will run.

SWR Towers has been inundated with a letter from its subscriber (hello Mum!) complaining about its long absence from the newsstand. We can only apologise for starving you of any news, gossip and conjecture for so many days. The absence of SWR is not, however, a result of laziness on the behalf of the editorial team, but the consequence of a nefarious act which occurred late at night last week.
Unbelievably, the night after we had written, illustrated and hand-tinted the next bumper, double-sized edition, thieves broke into our Hampshire distribution warehouse and made off with the lot. To try and cover their tracks they also made off with the entire stock of Muckle Flugga whisky which was maturing there given there was no space (or indeed building) on Shetland.
Inspector Harris Tweed of Scotland Yard is leading the investigation. “I’m baffled,” he said. “The thieves have made it seem as if the SWR and the whisky never existed in the first place.” However, the use of forensic science, DNA testing, CCTV footage and the bribe of a bottle of Buckfast have enabled the stunning reconstruction of some never before seen pages of SWR…

SWR issue 32 - Letter from Lord Grist
SWR issue 32 - Alfred Barnard is unwell
SWR issue 32 - Old MacPhunn: New positions

This might be purely coincidental, but we then received this e-mail...

Dearest Sirs or Madamme,
I have checked on the World Internet Web and have gleaned information from it that you are interested in the world of whisky. I know that you will be interested in this business proposition!
I am writing on behalf of my employer who is a leading consultant and hedge fund manager based in Nigeria who has approached YOU Mr Dave Broom with this offer. We are wishing to invest some of our extensive funds in the whisky world and wish to attract partners with which to act because it is difficult for a firm based outwith the shores of Scotland to do so.
We are intending to broker a deal which will build a distillery on a remote island in the Far North of Scotkand and have $50,000,000 to invest in such a scheme. I was hoping that we could place this money in your business bank account. If you could supply me with your banking details we can start the process of transferring the money to you. As an act of goodwilll we are willing to send you a bottle of blended vatted quadruple malts whisky from the as yet unbuilt distillery for your enjoyment!
[name and address supplied]

We have passed this onto Inspector Tweed.