Andrew is a sub-editor of Tory Hoose, with a keen interest in policy discussion and development. Andrew was previously No.3 candidate on the Glasgow Regional List, and candidate in Glasgow Pollok. Andrew has been selected to contest the Glasgow Linn ward for May 2012's Local Authority elections. Read more from this author

Scotland has a problem with the bottle… whether that is addiction, indirect harm through a friend or family member being addicted, or just not being able to afford any. Industry sales figures suggest that Scotland has the eighth highest alcohol consumption in the world. Some blame our miserable weather, some say we just like to enjoy ourselves (and cannot do that without a drink) – there is always an excuse for a cheeky pint or glass of wine.

There are questions of first principles around dealing with minimum unit pricing: what is the Government’s role in dealing with high levels of alcohol consumption? Is it to do nothing? Is it only to protect the innocent from harm? Or is it to, in effect, save people from themselves?

The SNP’s stance is, essentially, to save people from themselves. Well, sorry, the majority of drinkers who cause no harm to others do not need to be re-educated in this way. I know the risks already – and I certainly don’t want to live in a country where the State forces me to be fit and healthy. Those nations which went to great lengths to boss and order it’s people around to guarantee sporting success, for example, are totalitarian or former totalitarian nations, such as the GDR (East Germany), China, the USSR and North Korea.

That takes me nicely on to minimum unit pricing for alcohol. It is the social consequences of alcohol that the State must redress, not the health consequences for the individual. In short, the drinker consents to the harm done to the individual, but the child within their womb, or the family having to deal with drink-induced violence and abuse, have no say in the consent.

To my surprise, the SNP narrative on minimum unit pricing is that Scotland as a whole drinks too much alcohol, therefore a blanket price increase is a must to tackle our consumption levels. This is where I take issue. The concern is not directly for the social impact of alcohol consumption – it is merely the high level of consumption that they want to tackle. And their tactic is to kick people where it hurts – in their pockets.

The SNP say it will only be the cheapest of the cheap of drinks that will be affected. But hold on a minute here… think ahead to Christmas. How many supermarkets promote ‘3 cases of beer/lager/cider for £20’ around the festive period?
Now, here is an example – for 3 cases of a typical beer with a good brand name, the cost using many supermarket deals is £20. Using the SNP’s minimum unit pricing calculation, this could rocket to £34.43. People slam the supermarkets for selling alcohol so cheaply, but actually, I think they are amongst the most responsible retailers for alcohol. Most operate ‘Challenge 25’ policies to ensure they do not sell alcohol to minors, versus smaller ‘off sales’ retailers who can be rather more casual about selling alcohol to underage people.

This is where much of the anti-social behaviour that troubles our neighbourhoods is derived from. This is what should be tackled. This is what causes people grief, not the fact I may shave a year off my life because I like a drink or two. This is the natural realm of the State – whereas forcing healthy living routines down people’s necks is the natural realm of totalitarian dictatorships, such as China.

During the previous election campaign, the issue of minimum unit pricing came up at several hustings, and I gave the same answer each time: target the problem drinks, such as those laced with caffeine (apparently some tonic wines have a higher caffeine content than energy drinks sold for the specific purpose of giving a caffeine boost). It is the behavioural problems arising from alcohol that has to be tackled first and foremost, not the lifestyle choices of the masses. In terms of policy, this means a new category of alcoholic beverages for duty purposes, and hike up that level of duty. Then the Treasury, not supermarkets, will receive the extra proceeds.

Whether our own Dear Leader, Mr Salmond, would like to introduce compulsory exercise regimes in Scotland is a different matter. Yes, a hysterical claim to make at this stage… but the worrying thing is both the SNP and China have the same motivation towards public health: ‘if the people do not take the most extreme care for their own health, then the State must intervene.’

Scottish Conservatives must focus on dealing primarily with the social impact of alcohol, not health concerns for the individual with the social impact being secondary to that.

The SNP have their first principals wrong, so it naturally follows their policies in this field are flawed.