FOOTBALL fans would face a lottery over which grounds sold alcohol during matches with Scotland's councils having a veto on where it would be available, according to liquor experts
The licensing system would also throw up a raft of major hurdles and objections to the sale of drink at stadia even if Holyrood overturns the 35-year ban, they have warned.
As Labour joins the Tories and football authorities in calling for the reintroduction of alcohol to football, supporters of a change to the rules have been told Scottish Government legislation would only be a first step in reversing the restrictions.
It comes as the capital's most senior licensing figure claimed the arguments around the wider availability of alcohol at football were a rehash of the debate preceding its successful introduction at Murrayfield.
Eric Milligan, chairman of Edinburgh's licensing board, also claimed the issue was about where fans drank before a game rather than quantities they consumed.
Under Scotland's system local authorities have near complete autonomy in licensing decisions, with local factors the key ingredients providing they remain within the broad framework of the law.
Scotland's two biggest stadia, Celtic Park and Ibrox are both located within 'saturation zones', areas designated by Glasgow's licensing chiefs as having too many premises selling alcohol.
Similarly, Dundee also has an 'over-provision' policy which only grants new licences in its waterfront area and does not include either Tannadice or Dens Park.
Any club looking permission to sell alcohol would have to satisfy notoriously inconsistent licensing boards, which made up of local councillors, that there were measures in place to meet government criteria on preventing crime and nuisance, securing public safety, protecting children from harm and even promoting health.
The NHS, Police Scotland and ordinary members of the public can also object to the grant of a licence with their input often leading to the imposition of various conditions on the sale of booze.
Archie Maciver, convener of the Law Society's licensing law committee, said: "Whatever the outcome of any consultation on this clubs would still need to apply for a licence and licensing boards have the power to refuse.
"Glasgow might take the view this is not a good idea, Angus might believe otherwise.
"Conditions are part of the normal licensing process, as are objections. Areas also have overprovision policies.
"How would a board react to a massive increase in capacity if a club applied for a licence for their stadium or parts of it with potentially several thousand drinkers in the area, albeit for a limited time?"
Leading lawyer Jack Cumins, who has advised the Scottish Government on licensing issues, added: "If the SNP administration yield on this issue there would still be a massive struggle ahead as clubs seek alcohol licensing consents.
"In the current climate, it's not hard to see that applications are likely to face heavyweight opposition not only from Police Scotland, but also NHS Boards and where stadia are located in so-called overprovision areas, the challenge will be very stiff indeed."
However, Mr Milligan, a Labour councillor and Hearts fan known for his liberal approach to the licensing system, gave every indication the capital's board would look favourably on an application for Tynecastle or Easter Road.
He said: "For the life of me I can't see the difference between buying a beer in any of the hostelries near the ground or within the stadium. I don't believe that it will result in more alcohol consumption and alcohol being freely available doesn't mean people drink more.
"When the issue of Murrayfield came up several years ago we heard a lot of the same concerns as are coming to the surface about football.
"The police took a lot of persuading but it has been very successful."
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "Decisions such as individual premises licence applications and variations would remain a matter for local licensing boards to determine, in line with the legislation and their own local policy."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article