ONE of the successes of Holyrood has been the legislation it has passed to tackle some of the country’s public health problems.
Back in 2006, Scotland was the first part of the UK to introduce a ban on smoking in public places and researchers later credited the law with a decrease in the number of Scots suffering heart attacks.
But while the ban was an important first step in tackling smoking, other pressing public health issues remain, and a crucial one is obesity.
Official figures show one in three Scottish adults is obese, with one in three children also at risk. Not only is this a problem for the individuals themselves, in terms of facing an increased risk of illness such as cancers, heart disease and diabetes, but it is also an issue for the state, and the taxpayer.
A report last year by Scottish Parliament researchers found obesity cost the Scottish economy up to £4.6 billion as people died early or were sick because of weight-related conditions, and it also drained the NHS of up to £600 million annually.
Responding to public health concerns surrounding obesity, Scottish ministers have been looking at whether they should introduce a sugar tax, which they can do as long as any new law in the area is approved by Westminster.
Certainly, the case for such a tax has been powerfully made by health experts who have found that sugar consumption has fallen in countries, such Finland, France and Mexico, that introduced one.
However, attempts to bring in this tax could be stalled by the giant Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) currently being negotiated between the European Union and the US.
Mexico faced a multimillion-dollar legal battle with the sugar industry during its bid to introduce a sugar tax. The tax was successfully introduced, but during the process the Mexican authorities had to pay out $77m to the American firm Cargill for violating terms of North American Free Trade Agreement, which contained an Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clause allowing firms to sue governments over legislation that they argued would damage their profits.
It is likely that if TTIP is approved with its ISDS clause still in place, any future Scottish government would face a similar costly legal dispute if they wanted – in our view rightly – to bring in a sugar tax.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here