By stewartb
I’m pleased that independent whisky distillers in Scotland will benefit from the removal of trade tariffs on their exports to the USA. (As someone who greatly enjoys a single malt, I’ve long since shunned for the most part the brands of the big corporates in favour of Scotland’s burgeoning independent sector.) The role of FM Swinney in achieving this change in US policy seems to be ‘triggering’ Unionist politicians. Mr Swinney’s release of the text of the message he received from the US President is not going to help Unionist blood pressure!
Here is some additional, background information that may be of interest. It seems to clarify further which governments in the UK have been of most assistance recently to the Scotch whisky industry.
Supported by the Scottish Government?
From the Scotch Whisky Association’s (SWA) website (9 September, 2025) ‘First Minister joins SWA in Washington DC to press for zero tariff trade’ (see https://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/newsroom/first-minister-joins-swa-in-washington-dc-to-press-for-zero-tariff-trade/ )
‘The First Minister has flown to Washington D.C. to press for a better deal on Scotch Whisky tariffs that are currently costing £4 million per week.
‘With just over a week to go before President Trump’s State Visit to the UK, the First Minister has joined a delegation from the Scotch Whisky Association. They will jointly engage with representatives of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS) to advocate for a better deal including, ideally, zero-for-zero tariffs on spirits as part of the ongoing UK-USA trade negotiations. ‘
SWA Chief Executive is quoted: “The First Minister’s visit to the United States to press the case for removal of Scotch Whisky tariffs is a positive and timely intervention ahead of the President’s forthcoming State Visit to the UK.” (my emphasis)
“Scotch Whisky and US Whiskey share a close and longstanding trade relationship, and industries on both sides welcome the First Minister’s leadership on this issue and his efforts to strike a deal which will benefit communities in Scotland and across the US.” The FM’s ‘leadership’ no less:how will Unionist politicians and their media allies cope with being reminded of this praise?
The Managing Director of Isle of Harris Distillers is quoted: “I’m grateful that the First Minister is behind businesses like ours, publicly making the argument for tariff removal on Scotch Whisky at the earliest opportunity. Removal of tariffs would be a huge boost, helping to support jobs and investment across rural communities like ours.”
Supported by Westminster governments?
Let’s look back at some more of the history of this US tariff issue. From the SWA website (11 February 2020): ‘Scotch Whisky exports surge amidst backdrop of tariff uncertainty’.
The SWA at this time stated: ‘While the US remained the Scotch Whisky industry’s most valuable market, increasing in value by 2.8% to £1.07bn, export volume fell by 7% to 127m 70cl bottles. There was a marked difference in the final quarter of the year. In Q4 2019, exports to the US fell by 25%.’
And in this context, the SWA notes: ‘… the imposition of a 25% tariff on exports of Single Malt Scotch Whisky and Scotch Whisky Liqueurs to the United States is very concerning, and the 25% fall in exports to the US in the fourth quarter of 2019, immediately following the implementation of tariffs, is stark.’
The SWA’s CEO is quoted: “We are continuing to press the UK government to put in place a package of support for distillers to help mitigate the impact of tariffs, including a cut in excise duty in next month’s budget which would allow distillers to re-invest in the UK market while sales are under pressure in the US.” Keep this industry ask of Westminster regarding excise duty in mind.
Forward to 15 March 2023: ‘Scotch Whisky Hit with ‘Historic Blow’ After Tax Increase’.
’The Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) has slammed the decision by the Chancellor to raise duty on Scotch Whisky by 10.1%, in one of the largest tax hikes in recent decades, and further increase the competitive disadvantage faced by spirits – breaking the UK government’s pledge to “review alcohol duty to ensure our tax system is supporting Scottish whisky.’ This was a Tory Chancellor in Westminster.
Then from the SWA website (26 November 2025): ‘Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced an RPI inflation increase to alcohol duty.’
The SWAstates: ‘The Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) has said the Chancellor’s decision to further increase duty on Scotch Whisky will put “additional pressure on a sector suffering job losses, stalled investment and business closures.” Of course, this was an action of a Labour Chancellor in Westminster!’
‘The SWA had called on the new Chancellor to freeze duty to support jobs, investment and growth. Revenue from spirits revenue has fallen since the previous 3.6% increase to spirits duty last year, reducing revenue by 7% compared to 2024/25, or £150m.
Again the Chief Executive of the SWA is quoted: “The Scotch Whisky industry is disappointed that the domestic tax burden has once again increased in the Autumn Budget, putting huge additional pressure on a sector suffering job losses, stalled investment and business closures.
“Put simply, the government cannot expect the Scotch Whisky sector to just keep delivering growth, both at home and on the world stage, if the conditions which support growth are not nurtured.
“The previous 3.65% increase to spirits duty has reduced spirits revenue by 7% – a loss to the Treasury of £150m. Hiking duty today, for the third time in two years, not only limits our sector’s ability to contribute to much needed economic growth and productivity, but will once again fail to deliver for the public purse and needlessly cost jobs.
“Increasing global and domestic pressures led our industry to ask for duty in our home market to remain unchanged. Not a tax cut, not a handout, simply breathing room for a critical Scottish industry. Government has chosen to ignore those warnings, to the detriment of distillers, of bars and restaurants, our farmers and suppliers, and ultimately of growth.” Yes, ignored by successive Westminster governments!
And more from SWA’s website (21 April, 2026) ‘Spirits sector responds to £94m fall in UK spirits duty revenue’. It refers to ‘… the devastating impact of the 17% increase to spirits duty over the last three years.’
End note
The SWA’s website has a short piece on the latest news regarding US tariffs (30 April): ‘Whisky tariffs to United States removed by President Trump’. Notwithstanding its former, explicit acknowledgment of FM Swinney’s ‘leadership’ and his ‘positive and timely intervention’ as far back as 9 September, 2025 there is no mention of the efforts by the Scottish Government in the latest statement from the SWA. It was the monarch that did it?
But then this IS the Scotch Whisky Association! You may recall that the SWA argued against Scotland’s independence because it threatened (even temporarily) the ending of EU membership! Remember this for example from May 13, 2014: ‘Scotch Whisky Association Fears Independence Impact On Exports’ (https://dev.whiskycast.com/scotch-whisky-association-fears-independence-impact-on-exports/ )
‘In the SWA’s report, (David, now Baron) Frost called EU membership fundamental to Scotch whisky’s success: “We are able to export tariff-free across the single market, use EU to eliminate market access problems, and benefit from the EU’s clout in trade negotiations. … even a temporary interruption of EU involving exclusion from the single market or the customs union, if this were a consequence of independence, would be damaging and difficult to manage.”
That worked out well for SWA members! We know that Baron Frost did a sharp about turn on his support for EU membership shortly afterwards. One wonders if the SWA and its members have changed their opposition to Scotland’s independence. Like the Scottish Fisherman’s Federation, another trade body whose members have been let down by successive UK governments, I still have little confidence in their strategic good sense.
Discover more from Talking-up Scotland
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Talking-up Scotland 
When I first started reading this I thought to myself I had got it wrong because I was always of the impression that the SWA was against independence but, reading on my faith in myself was restored.
Let’s hope their memories serve them well come the revolution
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whisky companies pay no tax. Tax evade. Use Scottish resources and do not pay tax. Foreign multinationals. US foreign multinationals pay no tax. EU is making them pay.
Brexit
LikeLiked by 1 person
“One wonders if the SWA and its members have changed their opposition to Scotland’s independence.”
Could independence just be waiting for enough English whisky to mature? 😉
The UK Govt has a fundamental conflict of interest when it comes to Scotch whisky because it is now nurturing a direct competitor, English whisky.
In space of twenty years it has grown rapidly!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_whisky
“In October 2025 the English Whisky Guild published its second annual review. The review found that the current maturing English whisky stock is estimated to be valued at £1bn ($1.33bn), with the current total production of English whisky at 5m litres per year. English whisky is sold in 35 markets globally, with 40% exported and 89% of exports going to EU members. In 2025 there were 337,747 visitors in a 12 year period.”
LikeLike
You’ve got to wonder if the UK (English) government will lash English Whisky with taxes. I bet not.
LikeLike
O/T and long post , apologies.
Much of the media and the Met Police are obscuring something else that happened on the same day a man attacked, as in stabbed, two Jewish men in London.
Most of the media and the Met police are promoting this as a anti semitic attack and are only referring to two Jewish men being attacked.
However it appear that on the same day the suspect was also alleged to have attempted to murder Ishmail Hussein, a Muslim, in a knife attack at Hussein’s flat in Southwark, south London, Hussein had known the suspect for around 20 years.
The Met police posted this on ‘X’ on 1 May:
“A man will appear in court today charged following a Counter Terrorism Policing investigation into two men stabbed in #GoldersGreen”.
Owen Jones wrote in response to that post by the Met:
“He’s been charged with the attempted murders of three people. The third is Ishmail Hussein. Why don’t the Met Police mention that in their tweet? It’s buried in the press release, but why in practise downplay the gravity of the crime”?
On the 29 April Keir Starmer posted this:
The antisemitic attack in Golders Green is utterly appalling. Attacks on our Jewish community are attacks on Britain. Thank you to Shomrim, Hatzola and the police for acting swiftly. Those responsible will be brought to justice”.
So he too either decided to omit the third attack on a Muslim by this suspect or the Met police did not inform him of this third attack (which nowadays appears to be a common occurrence, that is where according to Starmer , it seems to be that information is something that others always seem to withhold from him hence his “I knew nothing” line of defence).
However on the 30 April Starmer also posted this:
“Yesterday’s terror attack wasn’t an isolated incident, it was the latest attack on the Jewish community for being Jewish. Today I spoke with volunteers, first responders from Shomrim and Hatzola to thank them for their bravery. I know that this is a deeply worrying time for the whole community. My government is taking immediate action. We’ve increased enhanced funding for police patrols and protective security and we’re fast-tracking legislation to deal with malign state actors. My message to Jewish people is this: you belong here, and we will do everything we can to keep you safe”.
So still Starmer does not mention the other stabbing by the same person who stabbed the two Jewish men , as inconveniently perhaps that other person was a Muslim.
The Q is why would this be framed as being an attack only on Jewish people which then prompted calls for Pro Palestine Marches to be banned, a pledge by Starmer for an increase in funding for policing in areas with Jewish communities in England (or just London), another pledge by Starmer to fast-track legislation to deal with ‘malign state actors’ and then political attacks by the Met Chief and also by Keir Starmer against Zach Polanski when Polanski highlighted the obvious excessive force used by police in apprehending the suspect (kicking him in the head as he lay on the ground) ?
Also the fact that this person, the suspect, had also stabbed a Muslim friend that same day was being ignored/omitted/excluded but by whom, as in who knew this at the time that they were promoting that the suspect had only stabbed two Jewish men?
Not forgetting that the crucial fact in this story which was that he , the suspect, had a history of serious violence and mental health issues.
The National newspaper have now written this :
“The Met Police has been accused of ‘airbrushing’ an attack on a third man on the same day as the Golders Green terrorism incident”.
Of course our friends at the BBC on 1 May wrote this on their website:
Their headline (hidden away) on the London page :
“Golders Green stabbing suspect in court on three charges of attempted murder”
“A man has appeared in court charged with attempted murder after attacking two Jewish men in Golders Green, north London, and another man in the south of the city”.
“another man” ?
Nowhere in that article do they, the BBC , mention that this other man was a Muslim but they do mention that the other two men were Jewish.
Agenda much ?
Now another article today ,on the 2 May, on the BBC politics page states that:
“Protests may need to be stopped in some cases, PM suggests”
“The prime minister has suggested there may be a case for banning some protests, following calls for a suspension of pro-Palestinian marches“.
“The PM said he would always defend the right to protest but he was concerned about the “cumulative” effect of repeated marches on the Jewish community”
“It comes after two Jewish men were stabbed in Golders Green, north London, on Wednesday”.
“Essa Suleiman, 45, appeared in court on Friday charged with attempted murder over the attack”
So what about the third man , (why is Starmer) and also why are the BBC not including this third man in their latest 2 May article , which as a new BBC article on this story comes the day after their previous article on the 1 May, which did note that the suspect was charged with stabbing three people on that day (but alas not that the third man was a Muslim)?
Starmer (and the Met Chief) and the Media still working on behalf of Netanyahu it seems , and where it also seems to be that they all want us to think that the thousands of innocent men , women and children being killed in Gaza and also elsewhere in the Middle east by Israel , is somehow a lesser atrocity than the two Jewish men who were stabbed this week in London.
(Or rather as the UK media and UK politicians present this as a supposed example of a ‘terrorist’ incident against Jewish people as being “an attack on Britain”, so then it appears yet again that if anything bad happens in London or England then it quickly becomes framed as something bad that is happening or has happened against Britain).
Meanwhile anything bad that happens in Scotland is confined to being promoted as a ‘Scottish’ incident and not , nay never, a British one.
Let’s get out of the UK State and then we can really begin to try to find ways to protect all people who live within Scotland, irrespective of their race, their nationality at birth and also no matter what their religious beliefs are.
Really more a case of choosing hope over hate and truth over propaganda, which will then both serve and benefit all of the people who live in Scotland far far more , plus it will not pander to those in power (as is currently happening within their UK State) who seek to promote their own selfish agenda for political gain and also for personal financial gain as well.
Liz S
LikeLike
Another O/T on the corrupt UK State:
News reports:
“Elections watchdog considers looking into £5m gift to Nigel Farage”.
“considers” ?
Why considers ?
Are they trying to find ways to not have to look into this ‘gift’ and so then not have to punish him pre the crucial elections in May.
Liz S
LikeLike