The Chief Executive of the SWA came to see us, unannounced, this week.

Clearly the SWA has a very difficult position squeezed between upholding the reputation of Scotch whisky, acceding to commercial pressures of its owners, and accommodating the numerous practices, customs and interpretations that have been allowed to develop  over the decades. Personally, I think it is untenable.

The SWA chief executive admitted that the draft regulations were indeed unclear and had needed more precise drafting. He insisted there was no influence on the association from the larger members of the association. Yeah, right.

The new regulations are meant to be finalised for November, and DEFRA have been apparently giving them a hard time. 'Vatted' was still not an option for the new single malt mix category that they wish to call 'bended malt'. But would they accept that the  current proposition was a marketing deceit that risk pulling the wool over the eyes of the consumer, potentially damaging the credibility of the industry?  Er...not really,  "but vatted is still not an option". So an alternative IS being considered?... Don't hold your breath.

I was assured that distillery names, geographical indications, village names, place names, fictitious distillery-sounding names etc. would not be allowed on ANY category of Scotch whisky - unless it was the actual name of the distillery, or was from the specific list of exemptions. This prevents spurious distillery-looking names from being used. But in reverse, do these provisions prevent a well known existing single malt brand from  suddenly becoming a blended malt brand? In effect decoupling the distillery brand from the single distillery of supply, an ominous development which the original draft regulations managed to make about as clear as mud.

I was assured there was no attempt being made to undermine independent bottlers who would be able to continue with current practices of naming the distillery of origin under the brand name of the bottler.

There was no intention of authenticating the geographical regions such as Islay beyond a legal protection of the name for whisky distilled on the island. As with other EU 'appellations' concerning food and drink production there was no intention, for example, of insisting that Islay whisky was matured on the island: "What would be next? Insisting on using Scottish barley?  That would clearly be impossible".  But why not? After all, the SWA insisit that 90% of barley used for Single Malt  Scotch Whisky is Scottish. So what's the issue? On closer examination the companies providing the barley may well be Scottish - brokers based in Scotland - but they are dealing with European-wide barley.  So not barley grown in Scotland as the implication is clearly meant to be.

In many ways the SWA has not been bold enough. They have missed a golden chance with  these new regulations to have a completely clean, constructive, and exciting new start.  The SWA's aim is to have all distilleries as members of the organization, the benefits of membership were strongly touted. But I fear that until there is an independent body acting between the SWA and the Government - a clear separation of roles between the industry's wishes and Scottish national interest, between marketing demands and legislation - I can't see us joining just yet, even if they would have us!