CONGRATULATIONS to Nicola Sturgeon for ramming through Minimum Unit Pricing of alcohol, apart from the smoking ban only the second positive game-changer since devolution (“Historic bid to curb nation’s deadly alcohol obsession”, The Herald, November 17).

For someone who spent most of her career promoting an agenda of blame and entitlement to persevere with a policy which, by all accounts, will affect the poorest in society shows just how serious the problem of alcohol is in Scotland. It's true this policy alone will not solve the problem, but, judging by the reaction on social media, the fact that Ms Sturgeon is prepared to put thousands votes on the line will do more for awareness of the problem – and her credibility – than hundreds of billboards.

I just hope she so boldly tackles the other scourges that seriously diminish Scotland's potential; obesity and the the problem of poor parenting and pupil behaviour which often makes makes discipline and good teaching impossible in schools. There were 600 recorded attacks on staff in Grampian schools alone last year.

Allan Sutherland,

1 Willow Row, Stonehaven.

WITH the minimum price of alcohol policy being implemented in Scotland soon, one important issue that arises is who gets the extra profit – the retailer or the supplier? Although many licensed products will be unaffected there will be increases in lower-priced products such as strong cider, some beers and a lot of everyday cheaper brands of spirits.

I think some of the cheaper ciders and beers may disappear from the market as they will be deemed as too expensive. However, cheaper large-selling spirit brands such as vodka which are currently selling for around £11 per bottle will not, and therefore the question arises. Who gets the extra profit ?

With minimum pricing they will move to around the £14 per bottle mark, which will be around the same price currently as the proprietary brands. Will the retailer get an additional £3 profit or will the supplier take the profit by putting up the price by £3 per bottle to the retailer? I would like to think that the small independent retailer working on tighter margins would get the additional profit but I’m not so sure. The large multiple retailer would of course also gain. Somehow I can’t see the supplier handing over this additional windfall without getting his share. And with the cheaper spirit brands moving to the same price level as the proprietary brands, will suppliers also then take the opportunity to raise these prices above the £14 mark to keep the differential and to get their share of the windfall?

The health benefits of this policy certainly have to be welcomed but I wonder who is most happy about it? The public, the retailers or the suppliers? My view is that those who gain financially will be the most happy.

John Cuthbertson,

7 Comerton Place, Drumoig, Leuchars, St Andrews.

THE front page of today's Herald (November 16) tells us that the Scottish Government has got the go-ahead to introduce minimum pricing of alcoholic drinks. The back page tells us that the same Government has made a grant of almost £1million towards the setting up of yet another distillery ("Distillery plan boosted by £1m grant injection", The Herald, November 16). Does anyone else find this incongruous?

Andrew A Reid,

75 Glencairn Drive, Glasgow.

THOSE of us of a certain age will remember when buying alcohol was extremely difficult. Then it became easier and now anyone can sell alcohol to such an extent that we now have shops that make a living from selling alcohol. Amazing progress – or is it?

I seem to remember warnings about the consequences of such policies: but of course they were dismissed. Will this new policy start to reverse the previous dreadful errors by governments? I doubt it, since 24/7 alcohol drinking is now regarded as part of modern life. I find this sad.

Brian McKenna,

Overton Avenue, Dumbarton.

I AM uncertain as to exactly what measure (no pun intended) Max Cruickshank (Letters, November 16) is proposing by making it illegal for restaurants to sell wine in 250ml and 175ml glasses. I realise that if wine is sold in a 500ml glass then you will have placed before you, in one glass, the amount of wine that presumably meets your recommended alcohol intake for the evening and as the meal proceeds you have an obvious visual aid in front of you as to how much is left for you to consume. The problem is that not everyone wants to drink 500ml of wine, and what happens if a small libation is sought at the end of the meal for the road?

I would welcome a restriction to 300 per cent on the mark-up on alcohol in restaurants. The only problem with that change is that the present arrangement certainly dissuades me from normally buying more than one bottle of wine per person in a restaurant.

However, I do support Mr Cruickshank’s plea that every establishment selling alcohol should provide free tap water before serving any customer. I have always found that free tap water is an excellent way of quenching a thirst and allows one to enjoy wine or other alcoholic drink at leisure. Another effective method is to sell an unlimited amount of non-alcoholic drink as the customer wants for £2 and allow the customer to refresh his or her glass at a conveniently located pump.

Sandy Gemmill,

40 Warriston Gardens, Edinburgh.

STATE paternalism operates under the guise of protecting us from ourselves but it ends in the destruction of liberty and responsibility. The state isn't an abstract entity, but a bunch of ministers and bureaucrats whose mismanagement of our police, health and education demonstrates that they're too incompetent to supervise our private lives.

In the last decade, the pervasive authoritarianism and centralising tendencies of our nationalist regime has made Scotland the most intrusive of Europe's nanny states. Aside from the irritation of having a moral Gestapo controlling the minutiae of our lives, their policies rarely yield the desired outcome they were created to achieve.

Consider the Orwellian Named Person act, bans on smacking and football songs plus limitations on what the little people do at home such as smoking or eating junk food. Fracking bans and windmill subsidies increase fuel poverty, perverse drugs laws fill our prisons and alcohol's minimum pricing is simply Prohibition for the poor.

Rev Dr John Cameron,

10 Howard Place, St Andrews.