Roy Beers: A Minister intent on mixing it with the Scottish pub trade

Publicans and trade groups were happy when he was making plenty of bellicose statements about tackling deep-discounting in the off-trade - and about doing whatever it might take to address Scotland's endemic national drink problem.

Usually government statements are reassuringly peppered with qualifications along the lines of "whereas the vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly …", giving the idea that if there's a problem, even a big one, it's still about a minority.

But recently these niceties have been somewhat lacking. The new licence fees, strongly opposed by Scotland's three main trade groups, will see many fees rocket from nominal to thousands in the blink of an eye.

The logic is that since (all) pubs are causing all the problems they should pay all the costs of licence administration. Only it seems the proposed rates may not relate to any assessment of what that cost will be - and unlike a gas meter estimate there won't, presumably, be any refund.

At the same time Mr MacAskill is still bent on enforcing what he has several times referred to as a "polluter pays" approach to late night disorder - making pubs and bars cough up to fund the cost of policing what would amount to tartan Alcohol Disorder Zones.

Again, the qualification some might have hoped for - "but don't worry if you run a nice wee tapas pub with customers you'd be proud to show off to tourists; you won't have to pay" - is absent.

Then most recently, ahead of Scotland's ghastly defeat by France at Murrayfield, the Minister warned thousands of rugby fans to behave themselves when enjoying the drink now available in the stadium at internationals following his recent relaxation of a historic ban on booze there. Any trouble, he said, and it'd be nae mair drink.

A later report said beer at £3.50 a pint in plastic mugs had sold well (benefiting the cash-strapped SRU) and also that, perhaps surprisingly, surrounding bars which could have lost trade were just as busy as usual - in fact some had queues outside waiting to get in.

The social cost of all this mass Murrayfield boozing? Nothing - not one arrest, either Scottish or Francais. There never has been any trouble at Murrayfield, and there never was any real reason for a ban there. The ban was brought in decades ago to all Scottish sports grounds purely to address the problem of drunken hooligans at football matches.

However either Mr MacAskill had temporarily forgotten that or, in the grim anti-drink climate of the times, felt the need to warn drinkers just the same.

I'm broadly sympathetic to his clear determination to make an impact - particularly on issues like sales to under-18's and discounted bulk multibuys in supermarkets - but there's no carrot to go with the stick.

Whether he means it or not all pubs are coming over as equally bad, as "polluters", and the idea that far from "polluting" their communities many bars are actually enhancing them - may even deserve praise, of the type, say, represented by a Publican award - doesn't seem to be on the radar screen.

I'd like him to consider the story of Edinburgh barman Mal Spence, aka "The Gordon Ramsay of cocktail making".

He is head cocktail whiz at the Montpelier Group's swish style bar, Rick's in the New Town's Frederick Street - and he has just won the honour of representing the UK at the Havana Club Grand Prix cocktail competition in Cuba this month.

If he wins, will this be celebrated as a nice achievement for Scotland and the UK? I think it should, because it's an award about verve, style and sophistication in an international arena, and with none of the usual kitsch-Scottish trappings.

But as things stand the bar where he works, while not in the nearby New Town main drag on George Street, could instead just possibly end up paying a tariff as a neighbourhood "polluter" - which would be completely preposterous.

Perhaps the language will be toned down and when the "polluter pays" levy is brought in bars will just quietly stump up ADZ "protection money" as some sort of urban licence surcharge, like the water charge in rates bills.

It's a frequent complaint by responsible licensees that they shouldn't have to carry the can for badly-operated bars, which they argue should be tackled via our burgeoning and magnificent new licensing laws. However that may not signify. "The polluter pays".

Meanwhile, back on licensing fees, trade figures and lawyers representing publicans are certain smaller independent bars will close (or in some cases hasten to the welcoming arms of a leasing pubco).

For a country theoretically announcing a bright new licensing dawn things look decidedly gloomy for at least some bars and their regular customers.