He does this for "moral" reasons yet recently vetoed the minimum alcohol price proposal: > “We do not yet have enough concrete evidence that its introduction w

He does this for "moral" reasons yet recently vetoed the minimum alcohol price proposal: > “We do not yet have enough concrete evidence that its introduction would be effective in reducing harms associated with problem drinking, without penalising people who drink responsibly. Where's the "concrete evidence" for this new stuff? Not something anyone can challenge either without putting their reputation on the line.