THERE can be no doubt about the importance of the whisky industry to the Scottish economy or the UK balance of payments, so we have no quibble with the latest research commissioned by the trade association.

It shows a sector employing almost 11,000 directly and approaching three times that through its supply chain, which is is said to equate to an impact on the UK economy of more than £5 billion.

The industry accounts for about 75% of of Scotland's food and drink exports and almost a quarter of the UK's. Exports to the US alone reached a record £820 million in 2013.

In short, it is a major economic and cultural driver for Scotland, spreading the name of our country across the globe wherever they know to ask for Scotch and not spell whisky with an "e" in the name.

When the Scotch Whisky Association seeks help from Ministers, at Holyrood or Westminster, against overseas protectionism and piracy it gets maximum support in the fight against brutal levies and cheap knock-offs.

It is difficult to argue with SWA chief executive David Frost when he states: "Scotch whisky must be recognised as a cultural asset that boosts growth and jobs, supports communities and combines the best of the traditional and the modern."

But then the rub: "Given the scale and impact of the Scotch whisky industry we believe the Government should show its support. One way of doing so, in the short term, would be for the chancellor to cut excise duty by 2% in the March budget."

In other words, all this "research" recycling the known big numbers is merely a precursor to the inevitable special pleading, a pre-Budget call to cut duty. As Mr Frost puts it: "It is unfair on the industry and consumers, and detrimental to the economy, that almost 80% of the average price of a bottle of Scotch is taxation."

That is, of course, a legitimate argument but it is hardly the full balance sheet. Since duties were invented they have focused on sin taxes. Booze and fags are actually less of a Chancellor's staple than they used to be and the electoral cycle has a major impact, hence yesterday's use of "new" research to kickstart a campaign for a duty cut launched last year.

Mr Frost does not dwell on the other side of the balance sheet such as the cost to A&E departments or the wider NHS budget coping with the effects of his product, or domestic violence or those injured by drink drivers. That is all, strictly, off the books, what our American friends call "incognito leverage".

The Scotch Whisky Association has continued to thwart the cross-party will of Holyrood by fighting minimum unit pricing in the courts. But that measure was calculated to impose a level playing field on alcohol. The greater the strength by volume, the higher the price.

It was designed to penalise things like super-strength cider sold in huge plastic bottles or cheap fortified wines. It could have been seen as an even-handed way to reward high-quality, premium products at the expense of crude alcohol and the SWA should recognise that.

Whether now, as more austerity has just been backed by the mainstream parties at Westminster, is the time to cut alcohol duty anyway is a wider question.