Sturgeon called Labour's bluff on booze

Now that Nicola Sturgeon has offered the Holyrood opposition parties a "sunset clause" allowing minimum pricing for alcohol to be scrapped if it doesn't work (your report, 5 August), surely they can now back the policy?

If, as they claim, minimum pricing is such a flawed scheme, they will be able to ditch it after a trial period and give the Nats a bloody nose. Why would they refuse such a chance?

Jackie Baillie, Labour's health spokeswoman, reiterated her argument that because minimum pricing was "a leap in the dark" Labour could not support it. Should Holyrood have shown the same cowardice when the smoking ban was being debated?

The truth is, of course, that the weight of evidence and expert opinion is clear that minimum pricing would be more effective in cutting problem drinking than any other measure. It would not raise the price of all drinks - only the very cheapest, nastiest stuff beloved of teen tipplers and alcoholics.

Sturgeon has called the opposition's bluff. Their obstinate refusal to even try out minimum pricing, in spite of wholehearted backing from doctors, nurses, the police, publicans and even some brewers and supermarkets, highlights their petty politicising of a public health issue.

JAMES TOUT

Edinburgh

Opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament are right to seek an alternative to the ill-conceived minimum price scheme. There are serious issues around alcohol misuse to be addressed but minimum pricing is likely to be illegal and ineffective. The Scotch whisky industry believes there is an alternative and backs suggestions that there should be a ban on alcohol sales below tax and a review of the alcohol duty system.

A ban on sales below tax introduces a "floor price" that is simple and enforceable, overcoming the legal issues around the Scottish Government scheme. Retailers would be required to pass on any increase in tax to the consumer and the European Court of Justice has indicated in the past that mechanisms of this type are less trade restrictive than minimum pricing. We recognise this proposal may not allay all concerns around alcohol pricing. That is why the UK Government's review of the alcohol duty system this autumn is welcome.

It is time to reform a regime that is a relic of the 1920s. Currently alcohol served as Scotch whisky is taxed some 250 per cent higher than the same amount of alcohol served as cider, 37 per cent higher than beer, and 19 per cent higher than for wine. It would be fairer and more responsible to recognise that alcohol is alcohol and that all drinks should be taxed at the same rate according to alcohol content.

DAVID WILLIAMSON Scotch Whisky Association

Atholl Crescent

Edinburgh