IT seems like a lifetime ago now, over 20 years anyway, but I remember my company was pulled up in front of the then-feared, no messing, autocratic Glasgow Licensing Board to respond to complaints of public nuisance and disorder outside a nightclub I co-owned in Shawlands.

Very serious allegations, that carried with it loss of trading hours, suspension or removal of its full entertainment licence.

The allegations were mainly centred on a couple of neighbours’ complaints, that on leaving the premises at 2am, inebriated punters would gather and hang about outside shouting and bawling while they queued for taxis.

Our lawyer decided, rightly in my opinion, that rather than argue with the board over the veracity of the complaints, in effect endorsing the notion that the club itself was part of the problem, to approach the problem from another angle and suggest a newly proven, well researched noise mitigation measure and instead become part of the solution.

Unfortunately, that reasonable and sane approach backfired spectacularly. The board went tonto, accused us of not taking the complaints seriously and making a public mockery of them and their high office.

READ MORE: Westminster sketch: Boris Johnson mocks Ian Blackford’s wee Heilan’ croft with its fields full of fish

In an explosive rant and tantrum, they slapped us with an indefinite reduction in our trading hours, which in effect was the worse of the three punishments, as it stopped us from being able to trade properly and there was no appeal process.

What was it our lawyer said that had enraged the uncompromising purple-faced members of the board and forced then to self-combust and kill our club? What well researched, proven, sensible but insulting solution did he offer up that would eventually cost us fortunes in a judicial review, one year later, to put right?

He suggested that on leaving the premises, the punters should be given lollipops to suck and that that would keep them quiet.

I can laugh about it all now but back then I was traumatised and in shock because he was right. Research in England had conclusively proven that eating sweets on the way out did mitigate noise pollution and reduce disorder. Sadly that evidence cut no slack with the board, it just severed our income.

I bring this up now because of recent events, namely the response from the Scottish Government to the rise of the Indian variant in the Glasgow area. They overreacted and, at the 11th hour, shut down the city by not moving it to level 2. They put many businesses at risk and jobs on the line. I also mention it because of last Saturday's disgraceful, frightening and shameful scenes of drunken violence that took place in George Square.

I fear that unless the Scottish Government look at these serious issues and problems from a different perspective, and try to find new ways to tackle the problem, especially Scotland’s not-so secret shame of sectarianism and bigotry, they are in danger of alienating many businesses and large sections of the community.

READ MORE: Herald Diary: A reason for rejection, right under his nose

They risk putting paid to any chances of fully recovering from this awful, debilitating and extremely polarising pandemic. In not properly consulting or engaging with those businesses now staring into the financial abyss, is the Scottish Government and indeed the chief medical officer Jason Leitch not in danger of being seen as part of the problem, rather than the solution?

Equally, with regards the scenes of chaos that shamed Rangers Football Club, the city and the country, should the authorities not accept some degree of responsibility for what happened?

They knew trouble was likely well in advance and couldn’t be contained so why wasn’t the stadium opened for the Rangers fans? It would have taken the sting out of the mob and diluted the numbers intent on going into the city. Until they engage fully rather than threaten the club with sanctions, they again will be seen as being part of the problem not the solution.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.