The new licensing act contains provisions that will make it harder for local traders to sell alcohol. In remote communities, the gap in the market is likely to be filled by organised criminals, who have something of a track record when it comes to prohibition. Janet Hood would rather trade with the professionals, and asks the Scottish Government to treat alcohol as the social norm everyone else considers it to be.

Having watched all episodes of the Sopranos I know that serious organised crime is heavy business, run by heavy men.

As lawyers it is our duty to report on suspected money laundering activities and do our best to keep these types out of business. The police, customs  and government have set up special agencies to deal with the issue and given the known links with terrorists we should all wish them the best.

However what do we do when it appears that Vicky Quay’s legislation is actually likely to benefit the bad boys?  Well we have to ask what are they going to do about that and what are they going to do to preserve legitimate business.

In this column I have commented on the unfortunate effects the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 will have on our remote communities. Pub after pub, shop after shop, there are closures across Scotland. Most hard hit are remote rural communities where small business and micro businesses were under threat before the advent of transition: changing from one licensing regime to another.

We all know that village shops and post offices, pubs and combinations of all three are often a marginal lifestyle business. They are, however, lifelines to local communities. Small independent tourist ventures will no longer be selling our most iconic national product - no not lucky white heather - whisky, because Vicky is determined to de-normalise alcohol. Unfortunately in many cases if these small businesses cease to sell alcohol, which is certainly considered to be normal in most of the western world, the business will fold because, marginal as they are, they can’t afford to lose what is often 20% of their turnover and survive. So why don’t they just get a licence under the new regime, get on with it and stop all this moaning? Cost. Unfortunately unlike our cousins in England and Wales where presumably the government either considered the effect on business or just got lucky - we have no real grandfather rights and the cost of entering the new regime is so high for these micro players that it can’t be met.

Nature abhors vacuums. Organised crime adores them. I understand that there is already a vast business in illicit booze and often dangerous cigs in the UK. The country is awash with drugs. I am told that in some parts of the country it’s cheaper to buy cocaine than beer. Hoo -flipping- ray!  

Now picture the scene. You live in a wee remote community. The shop shuts. The pub shuts. You have a 46 mile round trip to get to your next nearest retail outlet which is in itself not particularly well stocked or you can travel 100 miles to your nearest supermarket. Yes this is reality for many rural dwellers. You know that, you’ve been there on your holidays.

Along comes a white van. It is stashed with  everything in the world you can possibly imagine (to quote M. Jagger esq); beer, whisky, fags, carpets, cds, dvds and drugs to name but a few. If these types have any sense they’ll also carry foodstuffs. I’d hate to be the environmental health officer investigating that outbreak of salmonella!

Now whereas before when the shop/pub was open it was in the interest of the legitimate traders to inform the authorities - it was trade protection really - who will do so now? When I worked in local authority I often received calls from worried shopkeepers complaining about illegal sales from vans. It was easier for these decent individuals to give me the information and get me to call the police. The callers were often scared of the people in the vans. I wonder why?

I was asked at a conference if I would buy from such a trader and  I said “Yes, if I lived in a remote community” - which I do! Actually I’d be too scared as I’d hate to get caught. One would expect most  people would draw the line at the drugs, Gucci knock offs and that attractive but dodgy persian carpet, but a few beers, some wine? A case of latvian gin? Well why not? It’ll save  the trip, it’s cheap and more importantly it’s there. Who’s going to complain? Is it in the interest of remote communities to complain?  Will “van” trading be seen as a lifeline? I suspect the answer will be yes. So we will be normalising crime which is of course much  better than normalising alcohol!

It’s already there but it’s certainly going to be more there in the near future.

We are waiting with baited breath for the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill (no sign yet at the time of writing...). It is likely to contain even more draconian measures aimed at curbing the licensed trade. Why do we need to revise a system that hasn’t been tested?

Perhaps Vicky Quay could instead consider a package of proposals aimed at helping small and micro traders? Yes they will probably need to sell alcohol to remain viable. As far as I can see there’s a dire lack of concern for these people. “If they can’t afford to enter the new regime they won’t be selling alcohol” is an oft repeated response when Vicky is asked whether the government is concerned about closures of small rural premises across Scotland.

I think this issue is more important to Scotland than vote attracting measures such as the provision of  toll free bridges but maybe, just maybe, the real object of licensing reform was  to get us all to go to the nearest big town to support our much maligned supermarkets?