Local income tax was jettisoned by the Salmond Government without much of a fight, but minimum pricing on alcohol is not going to go the same way.

It was a feisty Nicola Sturgeon who insisted yesterday that the argument was still there to be won and the weight of expert and public opinion was with the Government on this issue.

Labour’s shift into opposing the policy was not a surprise, given rumours circulating since Jackie Baillie replaced Cathy Jamieson in the health portfolio. But with the Alcohol Bill being published yesterday and Holyrood’s Health Committee preparing to begin deliberations on it, Labour’s announcement that it was asking a commission to look into the issue seemed strangely limp.

Health Secretary Ms Sturgeon made the point that when the Labour-LibDem administration decided to outlaw smoking in public places, opposing it would have been the easy thing for her party to do, but the SNP decided the legislation was good for

Scotland and backed it.

When she appeared at an upmarket wine bar yesterday to share non-alcoholic cocktails with her chief medical officer, Dr Harry Burns, she was sending out a strong message – that the medical establishment was foursquare behind this reform, as were the police and all professionals who pick up the pieces when Scots drink themselves into ill-health and bad behaviour.

Alex Salmond was clearly bristling to engage on the subject at First Minister’s Questions yesterday, but Iain Gray led on teacher numbers instead. Ms Sturgeon said she knew “a dozen senior Labour MSPs” who disagreed with their party’s stance, but if more than a couple rebel that would be a surprise, with deputy health spokesman Dr Richard Simpson, a convert to the new stance, asked to lead the public argument.

Ms Sturgeon insisted that the Bill had passed the Scottish Parliament lawyers’ test of legislative competence and that details such as the precise level at which a minimum alcohol price should be set should be decided as evidence unfolds during the scrutiny process.

Yesterday, as publication day of the Bill, was day one of the debate, and she insisted that Labour were making a gross tactical error in lining up so strongly against it. But having done so, it will be difficult now for Labour to deviate from that path.

Minimum Pricing

The main bone of contention originally saw Labour offering a cautious olive branch when Cathy Jamieson was health shadow and a number of other senior figures were known to be supportive.

But with Iain Gray’s leadership failing to dent Alex Salmond’s Holyrood standings it was

decided that it was time for the opposition to oppose and Jackie Baillie, with whisky interests in her constituency, has been happy to oblige.

One criticism is that the Government has not stated a level for the minimum price per unit of alcohol – mainly, insists Ms Sturgeon, so that the latest Scottish consumption figures can be fed through Sheffield University’s model.

Behind the smokescreens that there are questions about the legal status of the Bill, or Labour’s own plans to kick the issue out to the long grass of a commission, the reaction from justice and health sources was overwhelming yesterday in its hostility to what Labour MSPs have done. But they have now dug themselves into a trench and like the referendum U-turn it would be too embarrassing to shift again.

Verdict: Likely to be voted down by opposition parties.

Social Responsibility Fee

Probably an even more vague part of the proposals than setting a minimum price. Who will pay for it, how much, and on what grounds? No-one knows and yet Labour has not rounded on this proposal so far.

The drinks industry is united in opposing the idea of a blanket application of such a levy during a recession, but most in the trade would accept it as in effect a fine for those establishments that are demonstrated to be causing anti-social behaviour.

As in the case of minimum pricing, the Government argues that they key is to grant the power in primary legislation and then use regulations to dictate how the power can be used. The Health Secretary hinted yesterday that the fee could be one answer to the claim that minimum pricing would simply deliver bigger profits to the off-licence trade.

Verdict: Trade unhappy but likely to make it into law

Banning Off-Sales Promotions

The days of the ubiquitous two-for-one wine offers and cheap beer by the case appear to be numbered. The pub trade argues that increasingly powerful supermarkets use drinks promotions to get customers in on the basis that they will then spend more money on staple products once they are lured across the threshold.

However, the pubs themselves have been imaginative in relation to the anti-promotion laws passed against them in the last legislative round.

A ban on Happy Hours came about through new rules insisting that drink prices had to be maintained for 72 hours. As a result many pubs now operate Happy Days,three days of the week,

when the prices of some drinks are reduced.

As it happens the very venue used for yesterday’s launch employs half-price offers from Tuesday to Friday.

Verdict: Will make it into law

Restricting Off-Sales to Over-21s

This was the proposal that produced all the hypotheticals – the married soldier on leave from the frontline celebrating with his wife the arrival of their baby, but barred from buying a bottle of wine because he is still 19 or 20.

The Government neatly drew the sting from all this by limiting the scope of the proposal to requiring local licensing authorities to consider such a ban in specific locations, with the onus on them to look at problem areas where there was community demand for the change because of an existing pattern of drink-related anti-social behaviour.

Both police and local people appreciated this approach when it was piloted in some areas, but it is likely to be a power used sparingly.

Verdict: Arguments continue but likely to be passed.