Comprehensive evaluations of public policy using natural experimental studies often produce mixed findings. Making sense of these to inform decision making requires a robust critique, synthesis and communication of all available evidence. Evaluating natural experiments can be messy. This messiness can arise from multiple sources, including lack of researcher control over the intervention, unmeasured confounding and a poor or inappropriate counterfactual. Furthermore, it is commonplace for multiple studies to be undertaken that explore a similar research question but incorporate diverse study types (e.g. qualitative and quantitative), methodological designs (e.g. cross-sectional and longitudinal), data sources (e.g. self-report surveys and retail sales), populations of interest (e.g. general population and dependent drinkers), time-periods and analytical approaches. These can produce a diverse and sometimes conflicting set of answers. Such messiness is playing out in Scotland in relation to the evaluation of minimum unit pricing (MUP) and, specifically, its impact on alcohol consumption. In a recent Opinion and Debate article, Holmes [1] summarizes 12 studies that have explored whether the introduction of the policy in 2018 has led to the theorized reduction in consumption in Scotland overall and among population subgroups most likely to experience alcohol-related harm, including men, harmful drinkers and those living in the most disadvantaged circumstances. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these heterogeneous studies have produced some heterogeneous findings. This can be problematic, as contradictory findings and the identification of potential unintended negative outcomes are seized upon by those with vested interests to create a distorted picture of the evidence base [2]. It is therefore important that the public health community and, in due course, Scottish parliamentarians, can make sense of what all these findings mean, both individually and collectively, taking into consideration the studies’ relative strengths and limitations. Holmes offers this, presenting a detailed and nuanced critique to arrive at the conclusion that MUP in Scotland has led to reduced alcohol consumption, including among heavier drinkers. Holmes points to a paper co-authored by the first author, which has been released since the time of writing, that adds further data for triangulation when assessing the effectiveness of MUP. Using robust and accurate administrative data, the study demonstrated that MUP was associated with reduced deaths and hospital admissions entirely caused by alcohol in Scotland during the 32-month period after its implementation [3]. The biggest driver of these changes was chronic harms, including alcoholic liver disease. It would not be plausible to see a reduction in these outcomes at a population level without reduced consumption among those drinking at high levels. However, ‘messiness’ remained, with a potential increase in deaths and hospitalizations due to acute conditions also found. While these increases were more than offset by the declines in chronic outcomes, resulting in a total decrease in health harms, it is important to assess all aspects of the evidence available. Further support comes from the experience of other countries that have implemented and evaluated MUP. In the Northern Territory in Australia, for example, MUP was found to be associated with reduced consumption and improvements among a range of short-term health and social outcomes, including reduced alcohol consumption in targeted products [4, 5], reduced alcohol-related assaults [6] and reduced police escorted emergency department attendances [7]. The concern that MUP would unfairly affect those who drink at low to moderate levels (i.e. within the low-risk guidelines) in Scotland also appears to be unfounded. Again, evidence from Australia supports this finding in a different culture and context where, on average, moderate drinkers were found to have spent an average of fewer than 9 cents more per week on alcohol due to MUP [8]. However, MUP is not a panacea. The insights from the studies reviewed by Holmes reinforce the need for multi-faceted alcohol control policies, including actions specifically designed to support those with alcohol dependency and to address alcohol consumption among children and young people. Critics are correct to highlight that some individuals in some population subgroups may have deepened harmful strategies to continue to afford alcohol since MUP was introduced, even if those individuals were already engaging in such strategies pre-MUP [9]. However, using this as evidence to repeal MUP, rather than to justify further support for individuals with dependence, risks losing the substantial public health benefits the legislation has brought about. Like many good policies, implementation has resulted in some important gains and highlighted areas in which there is more work to be done. There is growing recognition that many people with dependence issues are dealing with trauma or other issues, including increasing socio-economic inequality, that are causing or exacerbating their problems with alcohol [10]. This is a group that requires more assistance and resources with or without MUP. While the Scottish Parliament awaits a final synthesis report from Public Health Scotland before deciding on the future of the legislation, the multiple jigsaw pieces from studies published to date combine to paint a sufficiently clear picture: MUP is an effective population-level public health policy and an important ‘best buy’ in the policy toolkit for reducing alcohol-related harm. Mark Robinson: Conceptualization (lead); project administration (lead); writing—original draft (lead); writing—review and editing (equal). Sarah Callinan: Writing—review and editing (equal). Nicholas Taylor: Writing—review and editing (equal). Sarah Callinan’s contribution to the commentary was funded through an ARC Discovery Project DP200100496. Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Queensland, as part of the Wiley - The University of Queensland agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians. M.R. is a former employee of Public Health Scotland and was a member of the project team that is leading the MUP evaluation in Scotland. He is a co-author on several studies cited in the Holmes article. N/a.