It's all eyes on Scotland

What will the Scottish public make of its government's far-ranging proposals to tackle the nation's alcohol problem?

Talking tough is one thing, but will the 'something-must-be-done-brigade' be content when they too are directly affected? Will the respectable middle classes be happy if it means paying more for their weekly wine or queuing twice at the supermarket to collect their barbecue beers?

These are just two of the implications of the action points contained in the Scottish Government's consultation paper on alcohol misuse, published last month.

There is no disputing the radical nature of the document. The question is whether it goes too far, even for an electorate tired of paying the financial and social cost of alcohol abuse with its impact on crime, health and social breakdown.

There is already a backlash. The comment column of the Edinburgh Evening News has comprehensively damned the measures as 'well intentioned' but 'badly thought out'.

Its central criticism is the indiscriminate nature of the plan. 'While there is no denying the cost of alcohol misuse to the national economy, the scattergun approach suggested by the Government will punish many people who are not part of the problem,' it says.

The newspaper, in turn, questions minimum pricing, raising the age of purchase to 21 for off-sales, introducing a 'social responsibility" fee and alcohol-only tills at supermarkets. The one positive proposal, it says, is to increase funding of prevention and treatment programmes to £120 million over the next three years.

As John Grogan MP, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group at Westminster, has said, the Scottish Government's consultation will set the agenda for the UK, and Westminster will have to respond. Although, if it has any sense, that won't be until the Scottish public has had its say.

But the ramifications go further than just tackling Scotland's drink problem. Alcohol has become an easy target at which to lay the blame for a whole raft of social ills, and the measures suggested by the SNP administration raise real questions about state intervention and individual liberties, and the balance between the two.

Is it right, for example, that responsible retailers should pay an extra "social responsibility" fee, on top of the price of their licence, even if they have an unblemished record in business.

At a time when there is talk of lowering the voting age to 16, how can politicians think that people are mature enough to select them ' not to mention marry, bring up children and fight for their country ' but not be responsible enough to buy a can of beer? It is demonising young people again, most of whom are no trouble at all.

Again thanks to the Edinburgh Evening News for pointing out research by Columbia University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse that has shown that in the USA, where the legal age is established at 21, under-age drinkers account for nearly 20% of all alcohol consumed.

Yes, underage drinking is a problem, but illegality has done little to stop youngsters either drinking or taking drugs, for that matter. The UK government's most up-to-date statistics show that 31% of 15 year olds have smoked cannabis in the past year, for example.

On the other hand, there will be those in the pub and bar industry, both sides of the border, who will think that introducing minimum pricing for alcohol has real merit. There is a strong moral case for making supermarkets face up to their social responsibility and to recognise that alcohol is drug, if a legal one, and should not be used as a loss-leader.

But, as we know with cigarettes, price is only a partial deterrent and the fear from some in Scotland is that raising prices will only create a illicit trade in booze, with white vans from Glasgow and Edinburgh making regular trips to Carlisle and Tyneside.

The attraction for pub and bar operators is commercial, in that minimum pricing should narrow the gap between bar prices and those on supermarket shelves. But even if the competition authorities made an exception for alcohol to allow price regulation, would it stop there?

Legislation has a habit of causing unforeseen consequences. Would the next exemption be for 'unhealthy junk food'? Welcome as forcing the supermarkets into line over price would be, both commercially and morally, the law can be an extremely blunt instrument. Do we really want more state meddling?

The whole alcohol debate raises much broader questions. Should the majority pay for the actions and issues of a minority, for example? Should wider society shoulder its share of responsibility? It's a big political and philosophical question.

Perhaps more importantly, can controlling alcohol on its own really have any meaningful impact on deep-seated social attitudes towards crime and health? It's not the drink, but the people that cause the problems.

The detail will be about drinking ages, pricing and reconfiguring supermarkets, but the real questions should be about human nature and how far the state is prepared to control it.

Ease up on alcohol

For the sake not just of our nation's health but sanity too, we could perhaps all do well to cut back on alcohol ' not just on the amount we consume, but also the time we spend talking about it. The more the country, the media and politicians obsess about drink, the worse the problem appears to become, at least as far as they are concerned.

All this prompts the question of the role that the pub and bar market should take in the alcohol debate? Perhaps we could start by trying to take some of the steam out of the issue?

The pub sector has done well in recent months to help focus the public and media on the role of supermarkets, helping to put the big retailers in the dock over irresponsible selling and pricing. But that campaign has still done little to rehabilitate the image of the pub.

While some recognise that pubs and bars are taking a more responsible line and that drinking in a controlled environment is far better than getting drunk at home or on the streets, pubs are still seen by many, if not most people, as part of the problem.

Liberal leader Nick Clegg's recent swipe at pubs, bracketing them with the Tescos of this world, may have been unwarranted and even inaccurate, but it genuinely reflects a wider perception.

The problem is that the more the pub industry talks about alcohol, the more it reinforces the view that pubs and drink are irrevocably linked, for better or worse.

The public still sees an issue with alcohol in pubs and believe pubs should be doing more. Peach Factory's own research reveals that just under 40% of the UK adult population thinks that pubs should actually limit the amount that customers drink.

The truth is that the pub sector cannot afford to disengage from either the wider debate or the specifics raised by the Scottish consultation.

But a repositioning exercise is also required. With alcohol playing a decreasing role in the average pub's sales mix, now may be the time to ease up on the drink link, to place the pub's image more in the hospitality and food business as the drinking-out market?