READERS are being asked to believe that large amounts of taxpayers’ money, as well as goodness knows how many hours of ministers and civil service personnel’s time have been used during the long running legal battle with the Scotch Whisky Association – simply for the Scottish Government to “tick a box” to show the public they have done something (Scotland leads the world on alcohol pricing, The National, November 16). I believe Jim Taylor (Letters, November 16) is wrong on two counts.

Firstly, the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Act 2012 was approved by the Scottish Parliament therefore the Scottish Government has a duty to do everything in its power to ensure that the expressed will of a duly elected parliament is enacted and therefore the blame and cost for the five-year delay lies squarely at the door of the SWA and not our government.

Secondly, it was made clear that it is only one part of a long term programme and was never intended to be the panacea to the problems of addiction, a point which Jim Taylor dismisses because “what else has been done” as part of the strategy? This particular part of the strategy might be looked upon as something to help avoid future addiction, particularly among younger people who many of us know can get access to very cheap and very strong alcoholic drinks.

So what else has been done? Quite a lot actually. Those businesses applying for a license to retail alcohol now have a bigger hurdle to get over because they must face an assessment of the impact on public health in their locality and even if it is granted are now subject to much stricter regulation than previously and in a way not required elsewhere in the UK.

Alcohol levels for drivers’ breath, blood and urine are now the lowest allowed in the UK. Scotland was the first country to introduce a national programme of “alcohol brief interventions” a training method for the approach taken by the medical profession, which has been recognised by Scotland winning the first ever European Award for Reducing Alcohol Harm.

Scotland’s relationship with drink is changing slowly and a recent health report indicates a reduction in the number of reported incidents of 13 to 15 year olds drinking alcohol. The rates of driving under the influence have also fallen so I am grateful for our government’s “can do” attitude taking precedence over the “cannae dae it” response which some of our countrymen cannot seem to shake off, particularly those who are often the first to complain about the limitations of a health service which has to deal with the effects of alcohol-related illness, carrying a death rate 54 per cent, yes 54 per cent higher than England and Wales, as reported in June this year.

Current evidence from Canada suggests that minimum prices can reduce alcohol-related deaths almost immediately but even if if it takes a little longer here – and there’s no reason to think it will – surely every open minded person who cares about others must at least try to dump their prejudices long enough to support this genuine effort being made to make us a healthier nation. Finally, that old threat of booze runs to Carlisle to get cheaper drink. Haven’t these people twigged it yet? Haven’t they noticed how Westminster ends up adopting similar legislation to that of Scotland once they see it actually works? Wales only recently unveiled its plan to introduce minimum pricing and in England the campaign groups have already moved into top gear following the Supreme Court of Appeal decision.

Angus J Stewart

South Queensferry

SO the Scottish Government is happy at last that spending millions of pounds in the courts to win the right to apply a minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol – to stop the poorest drinkers from becoming alcoholic. Having worked in the drugs misuse field with young people for over 50 years, I know only too well that when you try to change the culture and behaviour of any group in society you always have unforeseen consequences further down the line, that most often make things even worse.

The spin off from this policy will of course give us winners and losers.

The winners – anyone who sells alcohol, the entire increase in price of alcohol will be welcomed by retailers of alcohol because it means more profit to them, as this is not a tax increase, so the producers and retailers get all the added cost into their bank accounts, and not the government as this is not a tax. A tax increase could have collected hundreds of millions in tax that could have been ring-fenced, to fund alcohol education, increase NHS budgets and alcohol treatment for those afflicted by alcohol misuse.

The losers – will be the young, usually poorest drinkers, who instead of drinking less will find other ways to afford their harmful drinking. There is nothing surer that the highly successful, innovative drinks industry, given time, will be the providers of that. The young, and poorer drinkers will most likely turn to illicit drugs which are already cheaper than alcohol.

What would be more effective? Make it illegal to sell wine in restaurants in 250 and 175ml glasses and for restaurants to charge at least a 300 per cent mark up on alcohol.

They could revise the law change that I proposed for the last alcohol bill which was to make every establishment selling alcohol provide free tap water before serving any customer. They botched that proposal by wording it in such a way that customers had to ask for free water, so missing a chance to make a real cultural change in our Scottish drinking habits.

Max Cruickshank

Hamilton