Politicians can’t seem to make up their minds about the drinks industry.

On the one hand, our elected representatives need no second invitation to take part in photocalls at Scotch whisky distilleries and pose with a dram, especially during election campaigns when votes are up for grabs. On the other, there are MPs and MSPs who are only too quick to endorse (often-questionable) policies which seem to make no sense from a business perspective, even if they are well meaning.

As such, there has been a wearying familiarity recently over the latest furore around alcohol branding in Scotland, which has put ministers on a collision course with the industry once again.

Little more than a year after proposals to curb alcohol advertising and promotion were thrown on to the scrap heap, the Scottish Government is looking at banning drinks branding from merchandise such as pint glasses, umbrellas, and t-shirts. As one tabloid newspaper reported, it could mean the end of bars serving pints with Tennent’s or Guinness logos on the glasses.

Having elicited such an angry response from the drinks industry and the wider business community last year for its initial proposals on alcohol marketing, which threatened to impose severe curbs on the way brands are promoted and the viability of companies in the supply chain, it seems an odd decision to return to this particular well.

Read more:

​Nothing has changed in the intervening period to suggest this latest move will lead to anything other than a re-run of the row which erupted between the drinks trade and the Scottish Government last time around, or that a compromise can be reached this time.

From a political perspective, and notwithstanding the pros and cons of the proposals, what can the SNP Government really hope to gain from picking another fight with the drinks industry? Would it not be better focusing on action which arguably has a more realistic chance of making an impact, as opposed to going to war over logos?

This is not to dismiss the problems Scottish society continues to face with excessive alcohol consumption. But banning branded merchandise seems to be a peripheral issue at best, given the more pressing economic and societal challenges which are arguably more closely linked with the misuse of alcohol and illegal drugs.

Politicians at UK level have also been found wanting in recent years with regard to alcohol policy, though the new Government at Westminster has an opportunity to improve that record in a few weeks’ time.

Read more:

As is customary as major economic statements from government approach, the Scotch whisky industry is making its feelings clear about current duty policy as the October 30 Budget nears. The Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) has been very vocal in recent weeks about the impact of the current duty rate and raised the issue again when it published its latest figures on exports last week. Those figures revealed a sharp fall in shipments to overseas markets in the first half against a backdrop of global economic upheaval.

Whisky duty was increased by the Tories to a whopping 10.1% in August last year – after extending duty relief for certain draught beer and cider products in pubs – and the SWA declared it has had a “damaging domestic impact” on the sector.

The whisky industry has, of course, major challenges to face in international markets, with exports continuing to be buffeted by economic and geopolitical instability. But the SWA was keen to emphasise the threat the industry faces in its hugely important domestic market where it argues that the elevated rate of duty – which is higher for spirits than beer and cider – is proving to be counter-productive. It says the current duty rate is holding back investment and job creation, and ultimately resulting in less revenue for the Treasury.

The SWA wants the new UK Government to demonstrate that it really will “back Scotch producers to the hilt”, as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously pledged, and begin to “reverse the damage by cutting duty on Scotch whisky”. It declared that this would “boost public finances and bolster the industry through this challenging period”.

READ MORE:

Speaking to The Herald, Mark Kent, chief executive of the SWA, said the forthcoming Budget represents the “first big best” of the new UK Government with regard to the industry.

“We obviously know that the Government is concerned about public finances,” Mr Kent said. “But, [if] you look at what happened with the previous government, [a] 10.1% increase [in duty] really had an effect on everybody. It had an effect on our industry. It is a massive increase and that meant we weren’t able to invest as we would normally have done… and it affects jobs. Also, it led to less income for the Treasury, and you probably have seen the statistics which meant [it] put up the rate and got less tax.

“It was devastating and an act of self-harm on behalf of the [last] government. We are looking to put that right.”

As Mr Kent acknowledges, the Labour Government has made clear its concerns about the state of the UK’s public finances. Very little would appear to be off the agenda as Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves bids to address the £22 billion black hole in the nation’s accounts that Labour says it inherited following 14 years of Conservative rule. Indeed, the Government has already shown it is prepared to make unpopular decisions, as illustrated by plans to remove the winter fuel payment from millions of pensioners.

Against that backdrop, it would perhaps seem unlikely that the Treasury would sanction a cut in spirits duty which it may feel would limit the revenue-raising potential from whisky. However, the SWA has declared the decision by the previous UK government to raise whisky duty by 10.1% has cost the Treasury nearly £300m in tax revenue, as higher prices ultimately translated to lower sales.

Given the many economic challenges Sir Keir & co are currently facing, radical change to alcohol duty may not be near the top of the agenda. But it would provide the ideal opportunity to show that the Government really is going to support the industry, and not merely use it as a convenient prop during election campaigns.