UISGE beatha may be the water of life but a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since Minimum Unit Pricing (MUP) was first proposed in 2007. The end game is approaching with the appeal being heard at the Supreme Court, but further action will still be needed by the Scottish Government.

That it hasn’t yet been implemented is due to the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA), which has continually sought to thwart the wishes of the democratically elected Scottish Government and has steadfastly ignored the pleas of health campaigners, police and alcohol counsellors in the front line of dealing with the harm alcohol abuse causes.

Now the SWA is not an organisation that is shy in coming forward. It’s hugely resourced, unsurprisingly given the profitability of the industry, with its lobbyists and its legal teams. Its cause is promoted at home amongst politicians and its brand protected from counterfeits abroad. It asks for and receives almost unquestioning support from Scottish Government and MPs on issues from extolling its merits to opposing increases in excise duty; even when there isn’t a particularly strong case for it.

That’s what makes the opposition of the SWA to minimum pricing so shameful. When it asks for support it invariably receives it, but when the nation seeks backing for a measure for the common good, it has opposed it tooth and nail.

Fine malts won’t be affected by minimum pricing nor even the price of a dram in a pub, this isn’t about protecting Scotch whisky but the interests of major alcohol manufacturers. Senior insiders have confirmed that to me and major Scottish brewers likewise have made the case for minimum pricing. The latter seek to end deep discounts forced upon them by retailers and would prefer to sell a premium product at a premium price.

But, someone makes the profits from the high-strength low-cost ciders and vodkas. Just as others use alcohol to encourage footfall in retail outlets, as shoppers will change supermarkets for a discount deal on a whisky or case of beer but not for cheaper digestives or bananas.

The SWA’s behaviour throughout has been aggressive legally and vocally towards politicians. Its stance also applied within its organisation where a major company that was broadly supportive was soon brow-beaten into acceptance of the corporate line.

When Justice Secretary I can’t recall any other trade organisation being as rude or confrontational. Having failed to bully me it sought to undermine me, criticising my actions to the First Minister. I was rebuked by him when the SWA complained about me, but the aggressive behaviour was the other way about.

The then First Minister then sought to intercede himself, convinced it was the singer not the song of government policy to blame. However, flying to Europe to lobby one of the major multinationals that are the pivotal players in SWA, he found his apparent greater diplomacy skills equally rebuffed. Profit not public welfare predominated. I simply laughed like the cartoon character Muttley and officials continued with the policy.

If and when minimum pricing comes it will help. Lives have continued to be lost as the cheap alcohol has flowed. Recent studies showed that, and the statistics included a close friend of mine, who succumbed this New Year to the alcoholism that had plagued him. It will also address the undermining of the ending of two for one deals that has simply seen the price of a bottle of wine bucket-shopped in some places. The two policies are both required to work effectively.

The policy itself streamed from being a justice policy to address alcohol-fuelled offending to being a wider health policy, recognising the lives alcohol abuse cost and the strain it places upon the health service. We had to come to terms with the fact that the problem in Scotland was greater than simply a small minority abusing alcohol, it also concerned the many who drink much more than is good for them. The costs impact not just on the courts and accident and emergency departments but across our society and on our economy. It was for that reason it was overwhelmingly supported by the Scottish Parliament in 2012.

However, how alcohol is consumed in this country has changed, with a marked shift from the on trade in pubs and clubs to off sales, primarily in supermarkets which now account for more than three-quarters of sales. This is why the Scottish Government needs to take further action.

If the court case fails new thinking will be needed, including a review of unquestioning support for an organisation that has far from reciprocated for the national good. Even, if as I believe it will be, the decision is sustained then action in further tackling alcohol abuse will be required; availability not just affordability needs to be addressed.

The water of life it may be, but it shouldn’t be sold just like any other commodity.