Angry representatives of the drinks trade yesterday said the rise in duty on alcohol will do nothing to stop binge drinking but will instead lead to job losses and widen the gap between supermarket and pub prices.
However, health practitioners have welcomed the move, claiming international evidence shows controls on prices and availability are the best curbs for excessive alcoholic consumption and a well-above inflation tax increase was long overdue.
From midnight on Sunday, alcohol duty rates will increase by 6% above the rate of inflation with beer rising by 4p a pint, cider by 3p a litre, wine by 14p a bottle and spirits by 55p a bottle.
Alcohol duties will increase by 2% above the rate of inflation in each of the next four years. The rise in duty on spirits comes after it was frozen last year for the 10th Budget in a row. Although the rise was widely expected, the increases over the next five years have taken even the most pessimistic in the licensed trade by surprise.
With around 65% of all alcohol sold in supermarkets, the Tories' plan to increase significantly the cost of products such as alcopops and super-strength lagers and ciders found many allies within the hospitality industry in Scotland, which believes it is already under siege from the cost of entering the new licensing regime through to the smoking ban.
They claim that the Chancellor is "shooting himself in the foot" as Treasury revenues will continue to fall, pubs will continue to close and beer sales sink further.
With the SNP government already pledging to target deep discounting by supermarkets, much of the concern north of the border centred around the impact on the whisky industry, facing the largest rise in duty for 17 years.
Ian Bankier, executive chairman of the 13-strong, UK-wide Whisky Shop chain, said although 55p on a bottle of spirits costing between £20 and £100 would not be felt by customers straight away, the increase by 2012 could be enough to deter tourists from buying it.
He said: "Whisky is a must-buy if you come to Scotland and by the time we reach 2012, just in time for the Olympics, the cost will have gone up so much tourists from our key markets won't want to buy it.
"David Cameron got it absolutely right. Take a rifle shot at the big offenders. What we haven't lost through duty in the past decade we've more than lost through the discounting of supermarkets."
Patrick Browne, chief executive of the Scottish Beer and Pub Association, which represents around one-third of Scotland's bars, said he expected more pub closures, which he said was now occurring at a rate of more than13 a month. He added: "This is a much bigger hit than the trade was expecting and will do more damage to the pub industry than we've experienced in previous few years."
Stephen McBride is the licensee of one of Glasgow's best-known pubs, the award-winning Lismore in the west end. He said the rise would reinforce the view of many visitors to the country of "rip-off Scotland".
He said: "I had seven guys from Bruges waiting at the door of the bar at 11am yesterday because they'd heard about the pub. This is part of our tourist package and we're putting it further out of reach for people. We're also driving responsible drinkers away to where they can buy drink cheaply, supermarkets."
Choosing to focus on the affordability of liquor rather than binge drinking, Mr Darling said figures showed that in 1997 the average bottle of wine bought in a supermarket was £4.45 in today's prices. He said an equivalent bottle was now about £4.
Dr Vivienne Nathanson, British Medical Association head of science and ethics, said: "These tax increases may be unpopular with some members of the public, but we hope that they will look at the wider issue and recognise that the UK has a real problem on its hands regarding alcohol misuse."
Director of Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems, Evelyn Gillan, said: "All the international evidence says there is a link between the cost and availability of alcohol and consumption. Education campaigns don't work. This is a step forward."
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 hereComments are closed on this article