The statements from Scotch Whisky Association chief executive David Frost represent the first time the SWA has publicly responded to concerns that the industry might be capable of delivering more tangible benefits to the Scottish economy (Scotch whisky is our darling, Letters, July 26). Clearly the SWA will move heaven and earth that the motion doesn't make it on to the SNP’s conference agenda, as you previously reported (Activists pushing SNP Government to challenge dominance of big firms in Scotch whisky industry, Business, July 19).
The claim the industry “adds £4.7 billion of value to the Scottish economy” is just as often expressed by the SWA as “adds £4.7 billion of value to the UK economy”. It depends on the audience. Big Booze is no different from Big Oil, Big Energy, Big Pharma or Big Tobacco in its ability to multiply their alleged contribution over several different constituencies.
But when the SWA fails to specifically rebut claims that 83% of the industry is owned or controlled from outside Scotland; when it ignores statements from as eminent an economist as Professor John Kay that only 2% of the global revenues stay in Scotland and when it refuses to counter the fears of industry experts that 98% of its claimed £1.4 billion annual supply chain spend goes to suppliers owned outwith Scotland, then its integrity and loyalty to Scotland is cast into doubt.
As a former Diageo executive and one of the "10,000 Scots" Mr Frost said had "work(ed) hard to ensure that Scotch whisky retains its position as the world’s leading high-quality spirit drink”, it sticks in my craw to hear the economic benefits of this world-renowned Scottish asset, which other countries would give their eye-teeth for, so undervalued by its own trade association.
Donald M Blair
Edinburgh
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel