It's more like the Mugabe's press department everyday.

Quoted in the Scotsman, the SWA said that the "overwhelming majority of the industry was supportive of the Government's proposals for new Scotch whisky regulations".

Not true. Firstly they are not the government's proposals but the SWA's that the government has been asked to implement. Sure the SWA does represent 95% of the distilling capacity, with 80% of the SWA owned by just 5 companies, the largest of which also provides the Chairman. They probably are rubbing their hands with glee knowing the huge commercial benefits they will enjoy. But SWA members make up only a third of the companies that comprise the whole whisky business, albeit the most powerful.

There are plenty of critics of the implications of these proposals from within the SWA, including senior representatives of the Classic Six, but they dare not have their names published in the press.

An SWA spokesman said: "It is a broad package of proposals and SWA members strongly support the legislation. Our members believe the measures will ensure consumers worldwide receive clear, consistent and accurate product information. The aim is to tackle deceptive practices that could undermine consumer confidence in Scotch whisky.

Um. Yes and no. There are indeed some good, long overdue points, but also a load of absolute stinkers. The biggest deception of all is the title of the new categories, Blended Malt in particular, together, deliberately it would seem, loose and ambiguous regulations about what the whisky can and cannot be named. These regulations urgently need complete reviewing if the above stated aim is not to be a total load of codswallop.

"The regulations will also introduce even stronger protection for Scotch whisky from unfair competition. For example, for the first time, this will include formal legal protection for the term 'Islay' and other regional names traditionally associated with whisky production, as well as introduce rules to prevent the misleading marketing of single malts."

Yes, this is indeed true. But read again the sentence immediately above this. So it's OK to have misleading marketing of blended malts then?