"Just saying that the Scottish folk music family doesn't seem to be hung up on the narrow definition"

Nor should it be. The narrow definition is for folklorists and scholars. If a piece of music can be said to be in a traditional style, or even if it merely draws on traditional styles and influences, then why shouldn't it have a place in the modern folk music community?

As I said previously, the Scottish Traditional Music Awards are very clearly using the word to mean a particular style, rather than in an academic sense, and they possibly take a fairly broad view of what that style encompasses. In that context, I see nothing wrong in the way they use it and I'm not going to argue that it's wrong to have a section for newly-written pieces. However in a different context I might argue that an unaltered piece by a known composer is not "traditional", albeit that it may be in a wholly traditional style and may very likely become "traditional" over time.

This is about the terms used to describe music, so it is about language rather than the music itself. Context is crucial to the understanding of language. Most of the time the context should be obvious, and the terms used should be interpreted accordingly. It seems to me that all too often the arguments which break out on here are because someone has ignored the context and tried to apply an interpretation which isn't appropriate to the discussion. There are times when pedantry and precision are required, and times when they are not.