A saviour of Scottish souls – or Minister MacAskilljoy?

In an exclusive interview with Scotland on Sunday, the Justice Minister defends his war on Scotland's 'shameful' booze culture

'I AM not a zealot," insists Kenny MacAskill. The Justice Secretary is understandably defensive when I meet him at the end of a week in which he revealed plans to change part of Scottish culture forever. It was a week in which he was called much, much worse.

"Drinksnatcher." "The Minister for Stupid Ideas." "Kenny Kretinus." All these insults and more were lobbed in the direction of the man who has made it his mission to make us wake up and smell the coffee – and then convince us to drink it instead of wine or whisky. When we meet, MacAskill starts by saying he will listen to his critics as the Government's consultation document Changing Scotland's Relationship With Alcohol proceeds inexorably towards legislation; but he warns that to "do nothing is no longer an option".

In evidence, he cites a police officer whose job includes telling US students how to stay safe in Edinburgh. "He has to advise them that if they go down to the Grassmarket or the Cowgate on a Friday or Saturday night, they will see folk lying and rolling around drunk. It won't simply be jakeys. They will be professional people – lawyers and doctors and everyone – because, as he says: 'That's what we do in Scotland.' And I have to say, I think that's fundamentally shameful."

MacAskill is awash with statistics to back his case: alcohol costs the economy £2.25bn a year; 50% of murders are committed under the influence; 80% of anti-social behaviour is alcohol-fuelled. There are faces as well as facts behind his crusade: the 21-year-old he met with cirrhosis; the Craigmillar GP who had seen five women in their 40s leave children orphaned because "their livers had gone".

MacAskill may deny being a zealot in his attempts to tackle Scotland's booze habit, but his passion is undeniable. He believes tough action is needed to force us to see the error of our drinking ways. That's why he wants to raise the age for off-sales from 18 to 21. It is why he wants minimum prices to increase the cost of some alcohol in shops. And it is why the Government will ban the "irresponsible promotions" which are so popular with shoppers who like to save a few pounds as they wander round their local supermarket.

If BBC Scotland's casting team was ever looking for a new character for River City – an old-style fire-and-brimstone Kirk minister, ready to wage war on the sins of Shieldinch – MacAskill could be their man. A fit 50 thanks to regular gym sessions, the dog collar would hang acceptably loose round his neck, and his speeches from the lectern at Holyrood tend to be as long and worthy as a Sunday sermon of old.

But MacAskill is admirably open about his own sins, especially his drinking, both present and past. He can't really avoid this, having famously been arrested on suspicion of being drunk and disorderly before the 1999 England v Scotland match at Wembley.

"I have accounted for my sins in the past," he says. And he admits: "I did drink when I was under-age. I did so at the age of 17 along with a lot of others – it was a rite of passage. The difference now is that kids are doing it at 12 and 14, sometimes younger."

But MacAskill is no convert to prohibition. He still drinks – and sometimes more than the recommended four units a day. "I enjoy it," he says. "I like going out for a pint. I used to be told by my mum to take my old man for a pint and I used to grump and groan, and now I like nothing more than dragging my son out for a pint.

"Pubs are part of Scottish culture. I like going to the pub to discuss football, the universe or whatever. I've been going to the same local now for about 16 years. I am part of the furniture. I enjoy it immensely.

"Do I have a drink at home? Yes. Whether it is with family and friends or occasionally a can while I am watching the football. I enjoy a drink, as do many in Scotland."

Absolutely, minister. Why shouldn't Scots choose to have a drink if – like MacAskill – they are adult, can afford it, and are able to drink without ending up in hospital or putting someone else there?

But, the SNP say, it isn't about choice any more. In her foreword to the consultation document, Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon wrote: "We can no longer afford to view alcohol misuse simply as an individual choice."

MacAskill tells me: "It's a problem that we have to tackle in a multitude of ways. So that's why it is broad-brush across the board."

Has MacAskill considered the irony that he, a lawyer who led the Can't Pay, Won't Pay anti-poll tax campaign, is now being accused of taking away civil liberties? "People have rights but they also have to accept responsibilities," he says. "There is some suggestion that what you do in your own home doesn't really matter. That you can drink yourself to oblivion and it's your right. I think there are two arguments against that.

"First, we don't simply allow people to do anything they want. We don't allow people to watch internet porn relating to children or some other vile matters in their own home because it impacts on others. We don't allow people to consume recreational drugs in their own home because they want to and they say it won't do any harm.

"There are things that we decide as a society, and as a Government, as a Parliament, that are inappropriate. That's why we say that there has to be a speed limit, that there have to be restrictions on illicit substances, that there have to be constraints on pornography. These things, some argue, are harmless. No, they are not. And secondly what we have to say is that the abuse of alcohol by an individual in their own house does impact on others."

Hang on. Is he seriously comparing getting quietly sozzled at home to child porn? He recants. "No. But what I am saying is that if people do abuse alcohol then that does impact on the rights of others because their behaviour affects others."

He adds: "If you consume it excessively it does become a problem because you don't live in isolation, you live in a community."

But when I ask him how much he thinks I should drink, he bats back: "That's a matter for each individual to decide." Make up your mind, Kenny.

You can have personal choice, it seems, so long as you drink sensibly (in the Government's eyes, at least). For example, MacAskill says his minimum price will only hit "low cost, high strength" drinks, such as the strong ciders favoured by youngsters. Mainstream booze, such as his own tipple, Tennent's lager, will not be affected. But this isn't strictly true.

The examples trotted out last week only leave 'premier' lagers untouched if you buy beer by the single can or bottle. If, like most supermarket shoppers, you buy beer by the box and are not brand-loyal, then you will lose out: Asda is today selling cases of 18 Stella Artois and Carlsberg for £7; under a 35p per alcohol unit minimum price they would go up by 55% to £10.85 and 62% to £11.34 respectively. Similarly, wine drinkers will no longer be able to enjoy 'two-for-one' and similar promotions.

Even if that box of 18 beers would last you a month. Even if one of those bottles of wine was a gift for an aunt. Even if you have never been arrested while drunk, you will pay more for your booze than the shoppers of Carlisle or Berwick. MacAskill is unapologetic: "Sometimes you have to take actions that do impact upon people who have not done anything untoward."

He is no more moved by other criticism, such as the contradiction of teenagers being able to drink in pubs but not buy off-sales. "Unless we decide as a society that we are going to have one set age, whether it is 16, 18 or 21, there are always going to be things where you are going to take a different view," he says.

But surely it is odd that an 18-year-old can smoke themselves to death with legally purchased cigarettes but can't buy their mother a bottle of sherry for her birthday? "The difference is that smoking is a serious damage to your own health. I accept that there is passive smoking, but the problems of passive smoking are nothing, they pale into insignificance in comparison to the anti-social behaviour, and indeed serious crime, that frequently follows from the abuse of alcohol."

I'm not sure the 30 people who die in the UK from passive smoking each day would agree. But this isn't about logic. It is a crusade, and MacAskill, whether he likes it or not, is a zealot. He has decided to tackle our drink problem and seems willing to take on the drinks producers, the retailers and any other "vested interests" to force us to be healthier and more sober. Whether we like it or not.

He will speak for many when he says: "We need to reclaim some of our public spaces. People are fed up with public parks at nights – and sometimes during the day – no longer being somewhere you feel you can take your kid to play football or walk the dog because it's a drinking shebeen."

Something, as they say, must be done. And at least MacAskill is doing something. But time will tell if Scots are willing to pay the price he is demanding – and we're not talking about a few quid extra on a box of beer or two bottles of wine.