By Steve Bargeton, political editor

RADICAL PLANS for a Scottish Government clampdown on alcohol would see the price of a bottle of wine soar, but leave some drinks linked to teenage drunken disorder unaffected.

Under the proposals a minimum price for alcohol would be imposed, making Scotland the dearest place in Britain to buy drink. A bottle of Blossom Hill Chardonnay, for example, would go up 23% but Buckfast strong tonic wine would stay the same.

Other ideas include raising the minimum age to buy drink in supermarkets and off-sales to 21, banning cheap alcohol promotions, creating alcohol-only checkouts in supermarkets and charging alcohol retailers a fee to help pay for the consequences of alcohol misuse.

Launching the proposals for consultation yesterday ministers said action was necessary to tackle Scotland’s alcohol problem, estimated to cost Scotland £2.25 billion a year.

Health secretary Nicola Sturgeon conceded, “Some proposals are controversial. They will inspire heated debate.”

That heated debate began the moment the Government’s ideas were made public with strong condemnation from the private sector and from opposition political parties.

The five key proposals are:

1 Raising the minimum age for off-sales alcohol purchases to 21.

This would mean that it would be legal for people aged between 18 and 21 to drink alcohol but not to buy a carry-out.

The Government said it would be illegal for someone over 21 to buy alcohol from an off-licence for someone aged between 18 and 21, but it was unclear how this could be enforced.

2 Setting the minimum price per unit of alcohol.

The intention is to hike the price of high alcohol volume, low-priced drinks by introducing a mandatory minimum price, possibly of around 35p per unit.

This would push the price of some supermarket whiskies up by a third, but would have no effect on premium brands.

Many popular wines priced at just over £3 a bottle would also go up by about £1.

3 Ending “three-for-the-price-of-two” type promotions, alleged to encourage impulse buying.

Retailers deny this. The Scottish Retail Consortium said, “These measures will penalise the majority of Scots who drink responsibly at a time when family budgets are under strain and value matters more than ever.”

4 A “social responsibility” fee for some alcohol retailers to help pay for the consequences of alcohol misuse and reduce the burden on the general taxpayer.

The Government was yesterday unable to say which retailers would be affected and how much the fees might be.

5 Introducing alcohol-only checkouts in large off-sales premises so alcohol, like cigarettes, is thought of as a “special case”, not just another purchase.

This could mean shoppers would buy the week’s groceries, pay for them at the checkout, then go back in and buy alcohol and take it to another checkout.

Justifying the Government’s proposals, Ms Sturgeon said, “Setting a minimum price for a unit of alcohol will mean price better reflects the strength of alcoholic drinks.

“This will end the heavy discounting which allows strong drink to be sold cheaper than bottled water.

“The cost of alcohol misuse to our health service, our justice services and our economy is enormous and growing. The cost to our families, our communities and our society is incalculable.”

But the proposals met widespread hostility among retailers and opposition parties.

Scottish Retail Consortium director Fiona Moriarty said, “We are fully committed to playing our part in tackling alcohol misuse, it is in no one’s interests to encourage abuse, but it is only a small minority of Scots who have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol.

“Draconian legislation will not change that but it will penalise the overwhelming majority of customers who consume alcohol perfectly responsibly.

“Why shouldn’t responsible Scots customers be able to benefit from competitively priced products as other UK citizens can?

“Irresponsible drinking is not simply a result of price or availability. Scotland’s relationship with alcohol is deep-rooted and complex. It needs measures that tackle all aspects of consumption and supply.”

The Scottish Grocers’ Federation (SGF) described certain elements of the strategy as “unfair and absurd”.

“While it is recognised that there is a need to address Scotland’s attitude to alcohol misuse, some aspects of the paper are wrong and inappropriate,” they said. “The document is full of measures that have not been fully thought through and lack evidence.”

The Scotch Whisky Association raised concerns that certain proposals “risk undermining Scotch whisky in its home market.”

They pointed out that ministers had “failed to answer the exam question” on any future minimum pricing scheme by not including a competition law assessment of proposals leading to politicians interfering in the commercial market.

Scottish Tory justice spokes-man Bill Aitken said, “We should target the problem drinks and problem drinkers and not penalise everybody.

“Blanket price controls will undermine our spirits industry and penalise the poorest most. Why should pensioners and other responsible drinkers pay the price?

“Students and young adult workers will only be allowed to drink at the pub—again hitting the poorest hardest.

“It is a ludicrous suggestion to stigmatise reasonable and res-ponsible drinkers by forcing us to line up at a separate checkout, as if we are pariahs of society.”

The Scottish Lib Dems called the proposal to ban under-21s from buying in off-sales “totally misguided”.

“Introducing a presumption of guilt for an entire generation of 18 to 20 year-olds that they are irresponsible drinkers will do nothing to improve relations between government and young people. Indeed, it could do quite the reverse,” said health spokesman Ross Finnie.

“If Scotland is to tackle its drink problem we need the vast majority of young people who drink responsibly on-side and campaigning and setting an example to their generation.”

Scottish Labour said, “Any good law must be enforceable and ministers must show their proposals are workable. We will scrutinise them carefully when they are introduced in Parliament.”