‘More effective than raising taxes’

The court’s opinion was delivered by Lord President Lord Carloway, who said the “targeted objective” of the policy was tackling “the consumption of cheap alcohol by those whose health is most likely to be adversely affected by it”.

He added: “In practical terms, the measure achieves the targeted objective by setting a floor price below which alcohol cannot be sold.

“The true area for debate is whether modification of taxation, within the permissible bounds of EU law, can achieve similar results in targeting cheap alcohol.

“Here, of course, the elephant in the room is the fact that the Scottish Government has no power to raise taxation on alcohol. That is a matter reserved to the UK Government.

“Conversely, the UK Government has little responsibility for the health of the inhabitants of Scotland, that being a devolved matter.”

The judgment also said a “fundamental problem with an increase in tax is simply that it does not produce a minimum price”, adding that supermarkets have in the past “absorbed any tax increases by offsetting them against the price of other products unrelated to alcohol”.

Increasing tax could also have “a disproportionate, undesirable and unnecessary effect on moderate drinkers, who do not represent a significant problem”, according to the ruling.

It added: “It is reasonable to conclude that alternative measures, including

“Taxation not capable of protecting as effectively”

increases in taxation, are not capable of protecting life and health as effectively as minimum pricing, while being less restrictive of trade.”

Lord Carloway