IT HAS been a strange week. In America, the Prime Minister urged President Obama to seize the moment and lead an international effort to deliver economic change, and yet in Scotland, the Government has just announced plans to effectively introduce a new tax for all.
That is the reality of a minimum price for alcohol, the centrepiece of a so-called "Framework for Action" to change Scotland's relationship with alcohol.
It sounds simple doesn't it: Put the price up and people drink less, while those currently d
rinking too much will be turned off because they can't afford it. Everyone will benefit.
I doubt it. The Scottish Government's plans on minimum price and banning promotions threaten to put prices up for all, diminish consumer choice and fail to achieve their objective.
Opposition politicians are starting to realise that far from being a bold assault on the serious damage wrought by alcohol misuse, Ministers are confusing being tough with having a serious plan.
There are legal issues of course. It's worth noting that even now, nine months since suggestions of minimum pricing first emerged in Scotland, the Government has not published details of how it intends to satisfy competition law, and specifically the UK's obligations under the European Competition Treaty.
Kenny MacAskill continues to claim that the Government is confident of both parliamentary and legal approval. If there's so much confidence then why not spell out the means and the rate you're planning to set the price at?
Ministers talk tentatively about a 40 pence per unit starting point, stressing without a hint of irony, that their intention is to hit the products most frequently associated with alcohol misuse.
Perhaps it's time to move the brain out of neutral. The whole point of a minimum price is that it affects every single product across every category, not specific products.
Once established, politicians will have the power to change the price at will.
The loudest voices in the health lobby are advocating a minimum price of anything from 50 pence to 80 pence per unit. That would put an average bottle of wine at anything from £5 to £8 – maybe not too much for a health professional or even, dare I say it, a politician, but a significant dent in the average family's shopping bill.
If, after a few months, minimum pricing was not considered to be achieving its objective, would politicians abandon it or simply raise the price?
Those hardest hit by a rise in alcohol prices are likely to be the demographic this Government most frequently claims to defend – those on low incomes and pensioners on fixed incomes. The ones who really do have an alcohol problem will sacrifice something else to keep on drinking.
The ban on promotion will also do little to change the habits of the problem few. The Government has already imposed significant burdens on the industry in the form of the revised licensing regulations due to come into force from 1 September 2009, including all alcohol retailers having to reapply for their licence, agree and comply with new siting regulations which have in some cases required major refits, specific staff training, and the application for all stores of a personal licence.
These conditions have created extensive costs, both financial and resource driven, in order to complete the reapplication process.
Then there's the age issue. Not proceeding with the 21 age requirement for off-sales as a national policy opens the door to fresh chaos and confusion. A 20-year-old will face an impossible situation, not knowing from town to town whether a particular licensing board has banned sales to under-21s or not.
Taken as a whole, the Scottish Government's policy sends a strange and, in my view, counter-productive message.
It says that alcohol is bad for all when most of us know that it's a pleasure. It says that if you're under 21 alcohol is forbidden fruit rather than something to be enjoyed in moderation. It says that if you have a car you might choose to head south to buy what you want.
Yes, the practical aspects of these proposals are seriously wanting.
The Scottish Government has downplayed the significance of internet and cross-border trade, yet many believe it will have a serious impact on Scottish businesses, as the experience in the Republic of Ireland suggests.
Having significantly raised their taxes people have been heading in droves to shop north of the border, taking their grocery business out of the country as well. Retail Excellence Ireland chief executive David Fitzsimons said: "Things haven't gone downhill, things are catastrophic."
There's another dimension too. The problem, as demonstrated in Sweden, of a massive increase in home brewing, which not only undermines the local economy but also leads to potentially fatal concoctions.
When looking across the EU there is clearly no established pattern between prices, consumption and misuse. In most of the countries with the lowest tax rates and prices for alcohol, consumption is also amongst the lowest.
Where are the proposals on education which might start to challenge people's perception of alcohol and encourage the responsible attitude we all want to see?
Where are the proposals to put more emphasis on enforcement – the very work that played such a significant role in curbing alcohol misuse in the pilot programmes frequently cited by the Scottish Government as evidence of an effective approach?
Instead, we have Scottish Ministers claiming to look after hard-pressed businesses and consumers while promoting policies that will do the opposite and fail to curb alcohol misuse. Scotland deserves better.
Jeremy Beadles is chief executive of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association.