Regional Differences

I notice that the Scotch Malt Whisky Society is currently focussing on regional differences. Are ‘regional differences’ still relevant?

Yes, during May the Society is releasing sixteen different single cask bottlings from the five defined ‘whisky regions’ - Highland, Lowland, Speyside, Islay and Campbeltown – asking members to judge whether or not “each region offers its own flavour… What are you into: flavour or regionality?”

The first regional division was defined by an Act of Parliament in 1784, which drew a notional diagonal line across Scotland between the River Clyde on the West Coast and the River Tay on the East, with different taxes and other legal requirements applying to whiskies distilled above and below the ‘Highland Line’.

In the Highlands, malted barley was used almost exclusively; the more fertile Lowlands made it possible to use wheat and even vegetables as well as barley, so already a flavour difference was apparent in the whisky made above and below the Line. Highland whisky was preferred and fetched a higher price, although much of it was illicit. When blending took off after 1860 many Lowland distilleries continued to use mixed grains; some had already installed the new continuous stills to produce grain whisky for blending.

By the 1890s the leading blending houses were categorising their malt whiskies by region: Highland, Lowland, Campbeltown and Islay. They also graded them for their usefulness in blends - ‘Top Class’, ‘First’, ‘Second’ and ‘Third Class’ – and this was reflected in the price of new make spirit: Highland and Islay malts were more expensive than Lowland and Campbeltown.

It should be emphasised that these categories and grades were for trade use only; they were not communicated to consumers. Nor were they based on flavour, although ‘usefulness’ did acknowledge the flavour contributed to a blend – all the malts ranked Top Class were from Speyside (which was part of the Highland region); most Islay malts contributed a desirable hint of smoke.

The use of regions to distinguish flavour differences between single malt whiskies was to some extent consumer driven in the 1980s: from a publisher’s perspective it not only provided a useful way to divide up a book’s contents, it helped consumers realise that single malts were not all the same, which boosted sales. Pegging flavour to regions made this apparent, especially to those familiar with the wine regions of France, although the differences had nothing to do with ‘terroir’ as traditionally understood. It was more to do with craft and tradition - the way whisky was made at a specific site, even within a specific region. My friend Dave Broom describes this as ‘cultural terroir’.

United Distillers’ Classic Malts Collection (introduced 1988) must be credited for opening up the whole sector with a range of six malts which stressed regional differences in flavour – Lagavulin (smoky Islay), Talisker (spicy Island), Oban (maritime West Coast), Cragganmore (complex Speyside), Dalwhinnie (typical Highland) and Glenkinchie (lighter Lowland).

Useful though they may be in shelf stacking and the lay-out of books, the arrangement of tastings and competitions, the Scotch whisky industry today is generally distancing itself from regional differences and encouraging consumers to focus on ‘flavour’. Many recently established distilleries proudly claim to be ‘flavour-led’ rather than ‘budget-driven’.

In conclusion, there are differences in the flavour of malt whiskies from one part of Scotland and another, for historical reasons and driven by blenders’ requirements. These differences are by no means rigid and may be varied: regional styles may be replicated to a degree, beyond their original region – for example, many distilleries are now producing peated variants of their traditionally non-peated spirit, and sometimes vice versa.

Notwithstanding this, the regional concept is still useful way of demonstrating that malt whiskies vary in flavour, especially to consumers unfamiliar with the category.