HOLYROOD passed the law on alcohol minimum pricing in late May 2012. Almost six years later, it is due to take effect on 1 May 2018.

It is a simple idea - make the price of alcohol proportional to its strength to cut consumption and improve public health. The stronger the booze, the more it costs, and the less affordable it is to those with a drink problem.

But this simple idea has had a complex birth, dragged in and out of court by a drinks industry, fronted by the Scotch Whisky Association, hell-bent on killing it.

Not, it seems, because it would impact on fine malts - its main effect will be on gutrot vodka and cider - but because Scotland would set an example that the rest of the world might follow.

More than five years were spent on EU trade challenges at the Court of Session, European Court of Justice and UK Supreme Court.

The latter brought the circus to an end by unanimously rejecting a final appeal last week. An estimated 400 people who might have been helped by minimum pricing have died in the interim.

As Health Secretary Shona Robison told MSPs when she announced the implementation date yesterday: “During the court cases, lives have been lost.”

Sadly, the minimum price she proposed of 50p per unit was a relic of the law frozen in 2012.

Many MSPs urged her to raise it to reflect inflation since then, with Liberal Democrat Willie Rennie suggesting 60p per unit.

Last year, there were 1,265 deaths and 36,235 hospital admissions related to alcohol. Admissions were eight times higher among people from the most deprived communities.

Ms Robison said a 50p rate should mean 58 fewer deaths in year one and 1,299 fewer hospital admissions - but that is a reduction of around 4 per cent in each case.

That seems to be barely scratching the surface.

Ms Robison explained she was “very cautious” about doing anything which might lead to more delay, although she left the door ajar to a raise at some point.

This appears to be part of the pernicious legacy of the SWA challenge. Rather than setting a rate which could make inroads into the problem, the Government is playing it safe in case the drinks industry cuts up rough again.

Ms Robison said the SWA had agreed to meet the Government’s court costs - at least £500,000 - but had not yet agreed to her offer to help evaluate minimum pricing.

Her predecessor Alex Neil suggested the SWA ought to pay a lot more for its “irresponsible” action, investing in communities scarred by alcohol abuse .

That is not a bad idea given the scale of the profits made from Scotland’s national drink. But what is also needed is an apology.

The SWA’s response to the Supreme Court decision last week was staggeringly churlish.

“We accept the Supreme Court’s ruling,” sniffed chief executive Karen Betts before immediately demanding Government support with overseas trade barriers related to minimum pricing.

The SWA should reflect on the body count, show some remorse, and get out the way of this policy.