PERHAPS unusually, the language of the legal judgment sums up the position clearly: “Minimum pricing is a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim.” Yesterday, in a unanimous judgment, seven Supreme Court judges said legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament to set a minimum price for alcohol did not breach European Union law.

The news was welcomed not just by Scottish Government ministers but by GPs and health campaigners across the country. It comes after five years of legal wrangles initiated by the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA), which had argued there were better ways of tackling alcohol-related health problems in Scotland, such as raising excise duty.

However, the judges said minimum pricing targeted the health hazards of cheap alcohol “in a way that an increase in excise or VAT does not”, and pointed out it would not increase prices across the board as would a tax. To sighs of relief in the NHS and support group meetings across the land, the SWA accepted the judges’ ruling.

It would be fair to conclude the SWA has not come out of this well. Even if it saw itself acting in defence of the broader industry, how it came to be in this position, particularly where the focus of the legislation has little to do with premium, export-friendly whisky and more to do with cheap cider and strong lager (though it will also affect cheaper blends of whisky), is something on which it might wish to reflect.

Defending the industry’s interests is perfectly acceptable. But in many quarters it has been seen as obstinate, and has even been accused of damaging public health, at least over the period of five years it has delayed this legislation. However, just as the Scottish Government can legitimately say it clearly has no intention to harm the industry, the industry might argue it obviously has no wish to harm the health of its consumers, even if it has given the hopefully misleading impression of needing a prod to think about such matters by the likes of minimum pricing.

As Health Secretary Shona Robison has pointed out, apart from the tragic toll on health and families, alcohol misuse costs Scotland £3.6 billion a year, and minimum pricing is only one part of a long-term strategy that includes banning quantity discounts and irresponsible promotions, and lowering the drink-drive limit.

We believe minimum pricing will help in the fight against the scourge of alcohol abuse. It is not certain. It will be judged by results. But the overwhelming feeling among those taking an interest in the matter is that it must be tried.

This was never a comfortable fight for the SNP Government, fighting for Scottish independence while at odds with one of its major industries. But similar policies are now under consideration in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Wearying statistics tell us Scotland has long led the way on alcohol abuse.

It is now, we are happy to say, leading the way on tackling it.