MOTORISTS in Scotland are being targeted in a drink-driving crackdown which could see regular breath tests carried out at police roadblocks.

The SNP is proposing a "zero-tolerance" approach to drink-driving, which could lead to all drivers being stopped and breathalysed on main routes to and from pubs and clubs.

Ministers also hope to lower the legal blood-alcohol limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to the European average of 50mg – the equivalent of one small bottle of beer.

The proposals include a measure to increase the maximum prison sentence for motorists found guilty of driving offences.

SNP MSP Linda Fabiani called for Scotland to be given more power to deal with drink-driving – even if that means introducing tougher penalties than England.

She said: "There is a concern that drink-driving is on the rise again. It would send a very firm message if the Scottish Government, with the agreement of the Scottish Parliament, was to enact the legislation to tighten the rules, both on the drink-drive limits and the penalties for breaking the law.

"It should be up to the Scottish Government and, through it, the Scottish Parliament, to decide how best to tackle the problem. If it wished, for example, to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving, that should be considered."

However, specialist road traffic solicitor Graham Walker warned the new measures could impinge on the rights of law-abiding drivers.

He said: "Zero tolerance is one of those phrases politicians and policemen blurt out and we all applaud until we see the real effects on our day-to-day lives.

"It sounds admirable, but what does it mean in the real world? If it means being pulled over by police as we go about our daily business we might just start to think this 'zero tolerance' thing is not just an inconvenience but a breach of our entitlement to respect for our private life.

"If we see regular roadblocks and traffic queues, I don't think it would be long before the police would lose the respect of law-abiding citizens who feel they are being made to pay for the few drink-drive idiots.

"Police constables already have wide powers to stop motor vehicles in terms of s163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988."

Motoring group the AA also warned the roadside tests could cause problems.

Andrew Howard, head of AA road safety, said: "Drivers face enough congestion without having to wait 20 minutes or more to be breathalysed.

"Most motorists understand the size of the drink-drive problem and are happy for police to have more powers to combat it. But I'm sure they would be less than happy to be continually stopped in breath tests."

He added that although most drivers support a reduced alcohol limit, they might not welcome stricter penalties.

He said: "We already have very strict penalties for drivers – if you're over 18 and get caught drink-driving, you will lose your licence for at least a year. What we don't know is how people will react if they reduced the limit and imposed stricter penalties."

Mr Walker, director of Roadtrafficlaw.com, said the current penalties are sufficient.

He said: "In my 28 years as a criminal defence lawyer, I have never heard a sheriff air the view that they would like to have greater sentencing powers when dealing with a drink-driver."