Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Minimum prices for alcohol a step closer as Lib Dems hint at U-turn

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 23 June 2009
SCOTLAND took a step closer to introducing minimum pricing for alcohol yesterday when the Lib Dems indicated they may perform a U-turn on the issue.
The change of heart came as a Scottish Government conference in Edinburgh on alcohol abuse was told by an internationally renowned public health specialist that "the world is looking to Scotland to take a lead on minimum pricing".

Dr Peter Anderso
n, who advises both the World Health Organisation and European Commission, led demands for MSPs to back the SNP's proposal to bring in minimum pricing to tackle Scotland's love affair with booze.

Until yesterday, the SNP appeared to be alone among the major parties in wanting to introduce a minimum price per unit. Labour remains split on the issue, while both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives had said they would oppose it.

But after the alcohol summit – which was described by some in the alcohol industry as a "cheerleading event for minimum pricing" – the Liberal Democrats indicated that they were now open-minded on the issue.

The party had previously claimed minimum pricing would damage the Scottish whisky industry.

They refused to confirm they would definitely vote against minimum pricing if it was included with other measures.

It is still not clear what the minimum price would be. The Scottish Government previously indicated it might be 40p per unit, but delegates at the conference yesterday pushed for 45p or 50p to hit the cheap end of the market.

Liberal Democrat Robert Brown MSP said that minimum pricing "will not tackle deprivation levels that are at the heart of the challenge of alcohol abuse". However, when a spokesman was asked if the party would definitely vote against minimum pricing if other measures to help culture were included, he said: "It is too early to commit ourselves."

The 16 Lib Dem votes along with the two Greens would be enough for the SNP to get the measure through.

All the principal speakers at the event claimed minimum pricing was the best way to reduce drink-related problems.

Scotland's chief medical officer Harry Burns said he had been "an agnostic" on minimum pricing until he saw evidence on how the relative cheapness of booze led to a "mirror image" of consumption.

Dr Anderson told the conference that in Finland, alcohol problems increased dramatically when duty was cut.

He declared that Scotland should have the "courage" to introduce minimum pricing.

Peter Waterson, of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, said supermarkets had to be stopped from using alcohol as a loss leader, describing the practice as "immoral".






The full article contains 442 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Brianwci,

23/06/2009 01:01:07
Excellent policy, but there are thousands of over 60s who rely on half price bottles of wine at the weekend and occasional offers on sherry or spirits.

I would ask that over 60s be allowed to buy special offers by showing their bus pass. Yes this will be abused at times as 60+s buy for younger friends, family etc but overall this excellent policy won't deny the over 60s a little tipple at the weekend.
2

subrosa,

23/06/2009 01:33:22
# 3

Not all over 60s have a bus pass Brian. Some live in areas where bus services are so minimal it's not worth it, but I thank you for suggesting that my weekend tipple won't be denied me. :)
3

Brianwci,

23/06/2009 01:58:31
A special over 60s pass could be created subrosa for those who don't have a bus pass.

I can't imagine you being anywhere near 60, you always sound so young......

...Mmmmm,I seem to be in diplomatic mode this evening...
4

Fletty73,

Stirling 23/06/2009 02:06:08
Nanny state going mad again.
This just means less food in my basket when I go to Tescos.
5

Electric Hermit,

23/06/2009 03:01:56
6
Fletty73

"Nanny state going mad again."

If you could eat clichés you'd never go hungry.

6

Electric Hermit,

23/06/2009 03:11:53
2
cu ceallach

"...this piece of well researched policy."

I'm not at all convinced of this. The explanation for Scotland's culture of irresponsible alcohol consumption is surely not simply the relatively low price of alcoholic beverages. There are many reasons why people drink to excess. But nobody takes to drink solely because it is cheap.

Fifty years ago alcohol was priced almost as a luxury. There was just as much drunkenness.

I applaud the Scottish government's determination to try bold measures to address what is undoubtedly a serious problem. I just don't think pricing is the key.

7

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 23/06/2009 06:05:48
I think Westminster should subsidise the price of alcohol for the over 60's.

On the basis that a high price will stop people using it, does this mean that a high price for Coke, Crack, Heroine, etc will stop people using them??

The very people that this is designed to stop drinking are the very people who will do whatever it takes to continue drinking. When prices go up, it is the discretionary users who stop using it.

This piece of legislation will do nothing to stop alcohol abuse. what it may do is force some of the "users" to crime in order to pay for their "habit".

The ONLY solution, and it is a long-term solution is EDUCATION.
8

Black Sabbath,

23/06/2009 06:54:35
This is a cretinous policy by the SNP. It will do nothing to reduce alcohol abuse and is simply a power grab worthy of the Soviet union and a crude attempt to bring the supermarkets under state control.
9

Jimmy Le Pie,

23/06/2009 07:03:45
#10 Black Sabbath,

You should lay off the cheap booze!!!
10

Graeme,

Guangzhou 23/06/2009 07:03:49
Interfering with market forces. Where does it end?
11

Graeme,

Guangzhou 23/06/2009 07:10:07
#12. Answer is: - Scrap the private sector and make it all public? Woops, didn’t Marx do that (for the peoples own good of course)?
12

Number 6,

Germany 23/06/2009 07:15:17
Even Brown's top medical advisor says the policy of minimum pricing should be considered.

Well done the Lib Dems for seeing the light.

There is no shame in working towards a better Scottish society. Leave that to Labour.
13

Jimmy Le Pie,

23/06/2009 07:16:51
Graeme,

Have a look at A & E units on a weekend.

We pay for the carnage!!!

Time for a crack down.
14

Grahamski,

Falkirk 23/06/2009 07:22:12
A knee-jerk reaction from the nats that is as sophisticated as a Burns Night at the Auchenstoorie Alba Liberation Front.
The problem isn't price it is cultural mores. Minimum pricing doesn't affect the fortified wines and alco-pops so beloved of your neighbourhood neddery.
The nats seem to be committed to banning something, why not target the drinks that are being abused and leave me and the vast majority of decent Scots alone to enjoy our three for a tenner wines...
15

Graeme,

Guangzhou 23/06/2009 07:25:22
#15. The more you interfere with the market the more it interferes with you. You had might as well re-introduce beavers into the Scottish wilds!

Common sense starts with education.
16

Jimmy Le Pie,

23/06/2009 07:39:52
You can't leave 'market forces' to run things???

No licensing laws??? Just market forces???

Aye right!!!
17

Graeme,

Guagzhou 23/06/2009 07:48:17
'Pricing market forces' I think was the subject. Licensing is an @ss too.
18

buzzer,

Aberdeen 23/06/2009 08:03:25
16# Why has alcohol been a cultural problem. What made alcohol a cultural problem. Lack of education? lack of

The low price strategy may well deter younger folk but as a nation we must provide recreational facilities such as all weather football pitches, swimming pools, cycle tracks etc for our youngsters and encourage them to see alcohol as a luxury not a necessity.
19

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 23/06/2009 08:06:57
Graeme

We've had intervention on market forces for decades now in Europe at least. Called CAP which controls the price of food in the EU to protect farmers from other agricultrual producing areas that don't produce food to the standards imposed by a raft of EU legislation (i.e. Cross Compliance, SMR's etc).

What that achieves is, at present, affordable food from the EU, produced to the highest welfare/hygiene standards.

Albeit minimum pricing isn't the saem kind of intervention as CAP, it may lead to an up turn in health and welfare of people. Sadly, in the UK and let it be said, in Scotland in particular, we/the Scots have a dangerous love affair with booze. That stats don't read very well at all!

I'm keeping an open mind on this one and I wish labour were on baord too. They are probably in the huff for not thinking of it first.....
20

TWC,

exLabour 23/06/2009 08:15:19
Really the Libdems need to look at their policy poition and distance themselves from the SLAB especially on the Topic of fiscal powers and the referendum.

There is no doubt that FFA as an alternative to Independence could bring the Libdems back to a popular position in Scotland; rather than tshrinkage they are seing with their hook up with the SLAB/Tories
21

Graeme,

Guangzhou 23/06/2009 08:16:09
#21. Exactly, protectionism. Thin end of the wedge. So much at stake.
22

Tynietiger,

23/06/2009 08:18:46
I am suffering from a hangover this morning and boaked into my muesli all from listening to the unctuous Jim Murphy who kept saying the SNP should stop playing politics while was he allowed to make umpteen anti SNP and pro Unionist political points unchallenged by the BBC.
23

Grahamski,

Falkirk 23/06/2009 08:19:00
20
"Why has alcohol been a cultural problem. What made alcohol a cultural problem. Lack of education?"
Partly education however there seems to be a particularly damaging relationship between northern European countries and alcohol which has existed for as long as humanity has made alcohol.
Political intervention on alcohol needs to be more sophisticated than a knee-jerk prohibition or forced price increase. History teaches us that these measures encourage criminality and do little to tackle the underlying reasons for our country's infatuation with unhealthy boozing.
24

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 23/06/2009 08:20:30
23

Yes, protectionism, and in the case of minimum pricing, the protection of individuals from harming themselves and other around them because of cheap drink. Countries have been deploying protectionsim for centuries and in terms of CAP, decades of "protectionsim" hasn't caused much in the way of problems, has it?

However, I sense you'd rather have no protection so the country can be flooded with even cheaper drink to we harm ourselves even further. Yes?

Also, no protection so the country can be flooded with cheap booze from countries, for all we know, that use the booze revenue to fund all sorts of unpleasant acts. Correct?
25

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 23/06/2009 08:23:47
Before this blows out of proportion:

There is no "prohibition" here. Booze will still be available so there will be no "Speak easys", raids or much in the way of criminality (other than exisitng criminality) and if you are desperate to get a cheap fix of booze, I would suggest you take a look at your lifestyle first.

I see Scotland is exporting vodka to the Russians now. Called Pincer I think....
26

Graeme,

Guangzhou 23/06/2009 08:28:35
# 26. Sensible debate I know, but where do our meddling know-it-all politicians end up? Minimum prices on processed food, pizzas, fish and chips, sea food and beef (because they damages the environment) cars bigger than 1300cc, three bedroom houses (because you must be rich), etc? Thin end of the wedge I say.
27

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 23/06/2009 08:32:20
SNP minimum pricing proposals were derided by the opposition when they were first mooted.
Westminster has now made similar proposals and the Scottish opposition starts to see the benefits of the policy !
The problem with the Scottish opposition parties is that they instantly have a knee jerk reaction to every SNP government proposal and produce reasons why that policy is illegal/unworkable/ridiculous/etc and then have to change their attitude when their Westminster overlords decide the line they should be pursuing.
28

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 23/06/2009 08:33:17
28

I hear you, but lets be honest, I don't think theres any "profit" in profiteering over the health of a nation, especially a nation that has traditionally been the sick man of Europe.

For some reason, the Scots arn't the best equipped at making informed choices when it comes to drinking excessivly, eating deep fried cr*p, smoking like lums and taking exercise.

There is some change happening from what I can gather, but it's hardly a tide of change, more a trickle.
29

Grahamski,

Falkirk 23/06/2009 08:35:52
27
There will very definitely be prohibition - economic prohibition. The criminality that minimum pricing will encourage is the same criminality which has created an illegal market in tobacco - currently more than 40% of all tobacco sold in the UK is illegal.
30

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 23/06/2009 08:40:28
31

Well I don't entirely agree with you there. As for the tabacco industry, I'm no fan of smoking as it killed my father, my uncle and a friend of mine (I am a reformed smoker - the worst kind - and not a day goes by without me thinking, I'm next).

Now, I know that Scotland upped it's whisky exports over £3bn. That's exports, not what was consumed in this country. The price of a decent bottle of Scotch is very high and when I buy a bottle, I savour it, not hoof it.

There is no legitimate reaosn why we cannot continue to produce booze for export to creat revenue. Producing booze in the UK for domestic consumption merely circulates the same cash around (in in most cases via the treasury).
31

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 23/06/2009 08:46:59
31

Was just thinking. Would that be the same sort of criminal thinking that made Eric Joyce make some very dubious claims including shelving in an empty pub and not paying CGT on one of his houses (oh but of course it was a divorce etc) and has made him one of the UK's most expesnive MP's? Now, tell me, which area does he MP for? ;-)
32

english charlie,

23/06/2009 08:52:36
Will this mean that MPs will no longer get cheap drinks in Parliament? I don't think so.
33

Grahamski,

Falkirk 23/06/2009 08:57:35
33
I think you're mixing up your Labour MPs, Mr Joyce has behaved within the rules. Just like Mr Salmond.
34

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 23/06/2009 08:59:51
35

Oh, of course. I saw Newsnight and he came across as very honest......and Geeorge Galloway didn't call him a lick spittle....

Why mention Salmond when there are a plethora of labour MP's that have committed worse "within the rules" claim making that slippy Salmond?
35

,

23/06/2009 09:02:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
36

TWC,

exLabour 23/06/2009 09:04:48
35 Grahamski,Falkirk

Joyce was CGT, the shelves, floor and the electrician was Devine, both Labour Mr Salmond was the food and rightly trying to impeach Blair
37

Grahamski,

Falkirk 23/06/2009 09:06:03
38
Correction: Joyce was falsely accused of evading CGT.
38

TWC,

exLabour 23/06/2009 09:09:28
39 Grahamski

I didn't hear that the last thing I saw was the newsnight interview
39

Grahamski,

Falkirk 23/06/2009 09:10:26
37
A typically nasty and vindictive post and snide personal attack which is fast becoming the lief motif of cybernattery.
40

Scottish and Proud,

Glasgow 23/06/2009 09:10:54
I think education is by far the best way forward.

For years we have had to listen to the unionists telling Scots they are too stupid ,too weak ,too poor etc.
Demeaning Scots and their aspirations for decades.

This kind of abuse and constant removal of self worth to promote the Union has had an affect on society.

This is the main cause of our "love affair" with john barleycorn.

Let us instil self worth ,pride in our nation and its achievemennts and watch the results then of all forms of abuse
41

John JP,

Wishaw 23/06/2009 09:11:59
The type of people this is directed at will never stop them from drinking as they are alcoholics. So regardless of the price of alcohol they will get it from somewhere.
42

TWC,

exLabour 23/06/2009 09:13:06


Graham,

typically nasty and vindictive post and snide personal attack

in what way is this descriptive of 37's post
43

Grahamski,

Falkirk 23/06/2009 09:13:56
40
Gordon Brewster isn't HMRC. Mr Joyce isn't liable for CGT for the simple reason he didn't own the house when it was sold. He has consistently refused to drag his ex-wife into this - even although he knows it is damaging for him politically.
44

Grahamski,

23/06/2009 09:15:31
37
"I know that this policy will hit soem LibDems hard (ex-leaders particularly)- "
Snide, nasty and personal attack on Charlie Kennedy a decent man who has battled the bottle.
It was a cheap shot which should be treated with the contempt it deserves...
45

Grahamski,

Falkirk 23/06/2009 09:21:04
42
Ludicrous and bitter post. Alcohol abuse is a serious issue and to relegate it to the level of petty and ill-informed party political pantomime is further evidence that your average cybernat is ill-equipped to deal with any issue beyond rebuilding Hadrian's Wall. Quite frankly pathetic.
46

mr angry,

ayrshire 23/06/2009 09:29:51
45. Ha ha ha , you are either Eric Joyce or a complete f*d, he is a disgrace and has milked the system and evaded taxes. We are not there to pay for his high living and divorces , oh and fund his pals wages. Get a life you sad little creature.
47

Graeme,

Guangzhou 23/06/2009 09:36:58
The bottom line is and it has been said before and you all know it is true. Putting the price up will have no effect at all, except on the normal citizens who suffer with the prices in the supermarket. The kids/people who go out and cane it will still be out there. In fact if you put the price totally out of reach, crime will rocket to pay.
48

Grumpy,

23/06/2009 09:43:03
Increasing the cost of alcohol will not stop the problem - and you tell me what supermarkets will honestly abide by a minimum / fixed price - they'll all find ways round it.

What we need is harsher punishment for drunken behaviour -not just a simple fine, but get them to clean up th estreets / ambulances while the employed staff look on.
49

Grahamski,

Falkirk 23/06/2009 09:52:06
50
Absolutely. The legislation already exists to combat anti-social and unhealthy alcohol abuse.
50

,

23/06/2009 09:52:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
51

Graeme,

Guangzhou 23/06/2009 09:55:43
Education is the only way. Drum it into all primary schools up as least as much as the kids get taught English and Math’s. Within 10 years you will have levels of alcoholism down at the current percentage of illiteracy.
52

Grahamski,

Falkirk 23/06/2009 10:00:52
52
Spagan,
Why not just stop being snidey? It's not big and it's not clever.
In the meantime I think I'll need more than a sense of humour supporting the bairns - I suspect this could be our final hurrah in teh SPL.....
Anyway...
The gist was and is the SNP are proposing gesture politics and grandstanding!
As a country we need to move forward and deal with the problems alcohol creates maturely and (if you excuse the pun) soberly. This should not be a party political issue, and it is certainly one which cannot be solved with draconian bans or price increases. Unfortunately, as with all other issues it would seem, this administration sees scoring cheap points as more important than achieving consensus. As always when hack politicians choose petty politics over people, it is the people who pay.
53

brownlie,

23/06/2009 10:10:59
51 Grahamski,

I don't often agree with you but I do on this occasion. There are two shops in this area who sell drink and cigarettes to children. If local residents know this then surely the police know but this has been going on for years with no action being taken. Those caught buying or selling alcohol for consumption by underage drinkers should be severely punished. At present, it seems to be regarded as a minor offence.

I think raising the price of all alcholic drinks could be counter productive but I do think that alcopops which are sweetened to such an extent that youngsters drink them like lemonade without realising how potent they are should be heavily taxed. The main purpose of manufacting them is to encourage the younger generation to drink alcohol.
54

Scottish and Proud,

Glasgow 23/06/2009 10:11:32
Why do any of you bother talking to grahamski ,he is the epitomy of everything that is corrupt and disgusting bout Westminster rule.
Someone that codones the likes of thieving dishonest Joyce,yet will attack Scotland or the SNP for any perceived wrongdoing.
a man that supported and continues to support gthe illegal war in Iraq.
He defends Toom Tabbard Brown and all his thieving band.
Grahamski is the disgusting Vichy ,Qusiling Westminster apologist that should be shunned by the rest of decent society.

when the day of reckoning comes at next GE my heart will be bursting with joy thinking of the anguish this piece of lowlife will be feeling.
A pathertic and horrible individual.
He and his ilk have helped hold our country down for centuries,his is the foot on throat of Scotland that westminster have recruited so well.
55

Graeme,

Guangzhou 23/06/2009 10:12:48
# 53. In fact while the SNP ponder the obvious education angle why not put all Catholic and Protestant kids together as well….
56

mr broon,

Edinburgh 23/06/2009 10:15:19
According to The Times, two of the largest retail organisations in the UK with a total of 470,000 members of staff, 48,000 in Scotland, have already pre-empted the introduction of this licensing legislation by holding expensive training programmes for all its Scottish staff in connection with minimum pricing.

Why are these retailers accepting this as a fait accompli when this legislation has not yet been passed into law?
57

it has always been allan,

23/06/2009 10:21:00
Bercow has not yet filled one day as speaker and many are plotting and moaning already.

What a lot of dismal politicians we have.

Cameron should be a bit quieter and let Gordon cut his own throat.
58

,

23/06/2009 10:23:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
59

buzzer,

Aberdeen 23/06/2009 10:23:35
grahamski 25# You are spot on that it has been a curse in Northern European countries probably something to do with weather and dark nights. That is why we need to do something now with this alcohol scourge which is evident around my neighbourhood.
The youngsters have no where to congregate with no facilities to enjoy life with each other. The sooner we demand that builders should construct a community centre with every housing development then we might rectify the glaring problems.
Where I disagree with you Gramaski is that this is a knee-jerk decision. This baffles me somewhat as we are having a cross party debate with health officials and othe agencies taking part. I for one welcome any dialogue so that my neighbours do not have to be subjected to the frightening activities of young drunk people in our community.
60

Grahamski,

Falkirk 23/06/2009 10:24:27
58
Agreed. In my area our local corner shop started selling Buckfast. Within weeks our area was littered with broken bottles and other drink-related mess.
People in the neighbourhood took it upon themselves to complain to the proprietor and leave him in no doubt that if he continued to sell Buckfast then we would take our custom elsewhere.
The propiertor relented and took Buckfast off his shelves resulting in the broken glass and associated problems disappearing. I know this is nimby-ism but if more people took a stand and refused to put up with the anti-social behaviour associated with alcohol abuse then that would go some way to ameliorate our situation.
It is worth pointing out that the iconic ned drinks, Buckfast and alcopops will be unaffected by minimum pricing.
61

Graeme,

Guangzhou 23/06/2009 10:33:01
Right, it's almost 6pm here. I'm off to the pub.
62

Euan,

Edinburgh 23/06/2009 10:41:51
I just do not think that creating a minimum price for a unit of alcohol is the answer.

The fact is that in Scotland (especially in our major cities), FAR too many retail outlets have been granted a license to sell alcohol and it is many of these outlets who irresponsibly sell cheap, nasty alcoholic drinks to youngsters who then go out and cause trouble.

I just cannot see how it is fair that if the minimum pricing policy goes through, the vast majority of people who are perfectly responsible drinkers are then financially penalized just because the politicians think that this will be the solution to all of Scotland's alcohol problems.

Instead, a good, long, hard look needs to be taken as to who is actually allowed to sell alcohol and a major clampdown must be made on the the number of licenses granted to retail outlets.

Not only this, the Government then needs to reduce the amount tax that pubs are fleeced for so we can get drinkers back into places where they can enjoy a drink in a responsible and controlled manner without having their wallets hammered in the process.

63

The Master 2,

23/06/2009 10:48:13
#71 Berero: " Agreed. In my area our local corner shop started selling Buckfast."

Why would anyone go for that, when there's a wide selection of stuff you don't find in your typical offie in that warehouse wholesaler on Commercial Street?

I try not to show face in Leith all that much following a business misunderstanding a few years ago, but it's surely a travesty if the great unwashed are shunning Tempranillo in favour of Buckfast.
64

The Master 2,

23/06/2009 10:56:20
#74 memamemamema: " Every day you drive more and more people into the arms of the SNP. Is that your agenda?"

Grahamskie doesn't exactly strike me as the Nats' number 1 recruiting sergeant, but if he is, he's not doing a particularly good job.

Even at this time of economic turmoil (surely a hothouse for Nationalism), the Nats only managed to score a derogatory 30% of the popular vote at the Euro Elections.
65

english charlie,

23/06/2009 11:06:59
Booze cruises have slumped over the last year or so, partly because of cheap drinks in supermarkets and partly because of the weakness of the pound. If there was a minimum price in supermarket, it could lead to a resurgence of booze cruises, meaning our money would be spent abroad.
66

resident edinburgh,

23/06/2009 11:11:18
I find it disgraceful that the Scottish Government assume everyone on a low income abuses alcohol and all those with a high income don't. What type of people do we have running our country? If alcohol is so bad then why not just ban it? This would be much fairer than the system being considered and if the government's view is correct our conrtymen and women would be much healthier.
67

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

The New Nazi State 23/06/2009 11:33:55
Well...

First it was smoking, now its drinking. Isn't that what I said about 5 years ago when the nazis started talking about a smoking ban?

If you enjoy anything at all except going to church on sundays and sitting reading romantic novels by candlelight, I suggest you make arrangements to move out of Scotland---and indeed out of the UK now. Things are only going to get worse.

The SNP only want more powers devolved to them so that they can flex their muscles on the Scottish population for no other reason than the fact that "they can". If you look at their demands from Westminster, every single additional matter they want devolved is backed by plans to tighten up the law and screw the Scottish population down even further...

1. Air weapon legislation -- Another ban
2. Speed limits -- Reductions and more enforcement
3. Tax raising -- Tax increases
4. Duty on alcohol -- An increase
5. Drink drive limits -- a reduction and subsequent criminalisation of millions of perfectly safe drivers.

The only reason they want power is so that they can clamp down on everything purely because they have the ability to do so. I used to think that the SNP stood for the FREEDOM of the people of Scotland. I now know that they are nothing more than a bunch of power-crazy despots who have no desire other than to flex their mucsles on the ordinary citizen.

It is about time that those who voted for them had a good long think. Yes ultimately the SNP may deliver independence for Scotland but at what price? Would you really want to live in a Scotland ruled by the SNP where oppression, lack of fredom and the nanny state prevails?
68

The Master 2,

23/06/2009 11:35:04
#79 Berero: how nice that you've now decided to set yourself up as an opinion poll psephologist (or, indeed, a poor man's John Curtice).

Like many, I only pay attention to actual voting patterns and can't believe that the Nats will achieve a "commanding lead over Labour" once their record (or lack of it) comes under the intense scrutiny of a campaign (I maintain that voters must be unaware of the complete laughing stock the Nats have created with SFT if they're really that popular).

What is your prediction for the Glasgow North East byelection (surely a must win for the Nats if their wacky separation agenda is ever to have a hope of seeing the lack of day)? The good voters of that constituency seemed wary of the Nats at the last GE (which was sad for them, considering that the other parties followed tradition and refrained from standing).

#85: you know as well as I do that the Nats just don't have a strong enough base to win all these seats. They've basically go Lib Dem like policies (when all the separation garbage is stripped away) and since when have the Lib Dems swept all before them in Scotland?
69

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 23/06/2009 11:47:41
#89:

Point taken. However all the ricidulous SNP proposals have already been dismissed as inappropriate or unworkable by Westminster---by Stupid Labour for christs sake!

I know we can do better than stupid labour and we will do in time. It seems that the SNP are even worse than them---and that really is saying something.
70

english charlie,

23/06/2009 11:55:35
#82. The idea of a booze cruise is to bring drink back to the UK.
71

Iain Mac,

23/06/2009 12:50:17
#87 - Octane head. Wasnst it the Labour/Libdems who brought in the smoking ban. Good on them too for it.

As to drinking, im not sure on this idea. But i hear lots of criticism from some without any other solutions? Let's hear them then?

Should alcohol prices be lowered then?

I support lowering taxes on malt whisky, simply so more of us can enjoy it more often. HOwever, higher prices on those cheap drinks that folk use to get blootered seems fair enough. I've never heard of anyone using Ardbeg Airigh nam Beist, for example, to get wasted before fighting at the Omni centre.
72

english charlie,

23/06/2009 12:50:34
Cost £75. Saving hundreds. You'd think that the Government want us to spend our money abroad.
73

Itchy,

Lochgelly 23/06/2009 13:14:38
#11 "You should lay off the cheap booze!!!"

You should lay off the ad hominem fallacies and get some facts and then an argument.

Black Sabbath is entirely correct in his view.
74

alanh,

ek 23/06/2009 13:16:48
this article claims
"The 16 Lib Dem votes along with the two Greens would be enough for the SNP to get the measure through."
and
"Labour remains split on the issue"
so if nu liebore sleaze and spin, north britain dept, party are split would that not mean some of them would also vote for the measure? Or do they automatically oppose every good idea our govt have?
75

Grahamski,

Falkirk 23/06/2009 13:19:32
96
"Or do they automatically oppose every good idea our govt have?"

I have absolutely no idea, when the SNP eventually have a good idea we'll see......
76

Eve,

23/06/2009 13:22:11
"It is still not clear what the minimum price would be. The Scottish Government previously indicated it might be 40p per unit, but delegates at the conference yesterday pushed for 45p or 50p to hit the cheap end of the market"

By the sounds off it the people who make the good quality luxury drinks should be delighted with this scheme as their drinks can stay the same price and economy cheap drinks get bumped up in price.

Gives all the excuses to buy the higher quality stuff in moderation.

Some people totally misunderstand why minimum pricing in alcohol is needed, they seem to think its about the government spoiling their fun.

BUT it's really sensible idea given the fact that some alcoholic beverages are cheeps than soft drinks. It is vital to the health of our nation that non-alcoholic beverages should be cheaper and more widely available than the alcoholic ones.

Price plays a big part in choice these days, if you go in to the shop in a hot day looking for a drink and it's cheaper or the same price to buy an alcoholic drink than an non-alcoholic one. Then most people would buy the alcholic drink. BUT if it was cheeper to buy a soft drink then they would almost always buy the soft drink.
77

Eve,

Scotland 23/06/2009 13:27:50
#92 Star spangled bannock: Thats a 20hr boat jurney!!

Fine if yer a sailer!! NOT so good for us land lovers!!
78

peter1958,

Glasgow 23/06/2009 13:33:18
Minimum pricing will fail as a policy. It will allow brewers and distillers to form a legally recognised cartel and the introduction of a minimum retail price will simply open the doors ever wider for those individuals who operate beyond the law.

As a smoker who buys fags from legal sources, I refuse to support those selling forged and blackmarket goods, but frankly, I am rapidly becoming one of the few. The market in forged fags sold outwith shop premises seems to mushroom all the time and I would estimate the market is now split 60/40 and geading towards 50/50.

The same will happen with drink. More and more of the stuff will be sold direct without any form of regulation and licensing and there will be no quality control that can be effectively introduced.

Also, people with drink problems won't simply buy less and reduce their intake, they will opt for stronger and stronger ABVs and spend even more of what little they have left of their disposable income.

I would be a lot happier if the govt made no effort to control prices at all but simply upped the tax on all alcohol by say 300% and set licensing fees at £100,000 a pop. At least then we would have increased public expenditure in those areas directly related rather than see the additional funds paid out as dividends. If a rank stupid policy is going to fail it may as well benefit the treasury as well as the new aspiring criminal underclass.
79

Grahamski,

Falkirk 23/06/2009 13:33:47
98
Eve,
The main drink of choice of the anti-social ned is Buckfast which retails at above a fiver a bottle - next favourite is alco-pops again retailling well above the bargain basement end of alcohol sales.
Minimum pricing will mean supermarkets will have to abandon three for a tenner bottles of Chardonnay but leave your local corner shop with their stocks of Buckie and alco-pops unaffected. Madness.
80

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

The New Nazi State 23/06/2009 13:45:11
#93:

"Wasnst it the Labour/Libdems who brought in the smoking ban. Good on them too for it."

They did it with full SNP support if I remember correctly. Only the Tories were the ones with enough sense to vote against it.

As for it being good. If you really genuinely believe that the singling out of a significant minority of the population and encouraging discrimination against them and oppression and ridicule towards them is in any way "a good thing" then you are pretty sick minded... Especially when the legislation permitting that to happen was justified by the biggest campaign of lies in the history of the British Isles.

The exact same thing is about to happen with alcohol unless we do something to stop it.
81

MRab2,

23/06/2009 13:45:52
#93 Talk about snobbery!!

There's an awful lot of people on here who really don't like the idea of personal liberty. Whether you like it or not price hiking IS an attack on liberty.

We're all *legally* free to buy Ferraris, but if you can't afford it then you're not actually free to buy one, and the latter type of freedom is the only one that matters.
When it's market forces that results in this then it's just the way it is, but if it's the government that's caused it then they deliberately limiting your freedom.

Now, I realise 40p per unit isn't even remotely in the same league, but the concept is the same; they don't want people to drink as much so they limit their freedom and make it harder to drink as much.

40p isn't enough to achieve this, so how long does anyone think it'll really stay there?
82

,

23/06/2009 13:48:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
83

Eve,

Scotland 23/06/2009 13:54:41
#101 Grahamski: 1stly: Where on earth do ye buy yer alco-pops from? I can buy a pack of 4 for ~£4, I've seen dials where you can buy 2 packs of 4 for £5 or £6s. You can get a ~70cl bottle of alco-pops for about £2 and they contain the almost the same amount of 3 small bottles.

Any way alco-pops buck the trend of alcoholic beverages and have become less alcohol in resent years. In the late 1990's they where on average contained 1.5units of alcohol, these days they contain 1.1units of alcohol per serving.
84

Soosider,

Glasgow 23/06/2009 13:57:38
It is interesting how many posters do not appear to have actually read the document where minimum pricing is mentioned as part of a wide range of actions that could begin to tackle Scotlands unhealthy relationship with alcohol.
Minimum pricing does not necessarily mean a price rise, except on those very cheap highly potent drinks. It will make no difference to pints and to almost all beers, it will make no difference to bottles of whisky malt or blended. There are many other far reaching proposals that could begin to change or relationship to drink. What is clear is that we should no longer tolerate the real cost of alcohol, the cost to our NHS in casualty departments and in long term health problems, the cost to industry in absenteeism, the cost to our criminal justice system where in the vast majority of violent crimes drink plays a significant part.
The purpose of this legislation is not to punish responsible drinkers but to target those who are irresponsible. The Lib/Dems are to be congratulated for at last starting to think these proposals out and not just react in knee jerk manner.
85

Eve,

Scotland 23/06/2009 14:05:04
#101 Grahamski: 2ndly: The 3 bottles of wine for £10 should be stopped. It would be fine if we were a nation of dinner parties, so their for there would be more people helping to drink the contains.

Wine has followed the trend in becoming more alcoholic over the years. There use to be only on average 7-8units of alcohol in a bottle 75cl BUT thanks to all the sun that the new Worlds get it's been upped to ~10units per bottle 75cl. I've seen bottles 75cl of red that have said they contain 11.5units.

BUT the sad thing is that encourages a party of 3/4 to drink 2/3 bottles of wine between them during a gathering rather than 1 bottle. 75cl bottle of wine should give 4 people a fare sized glass of wine which would be on average contain ~2.5 units of alcohol. This would be a healthy balanced approach to consuming alcohol.
86

Eve,

Scotland 23/06/2009 14:12:17
#101 Grahamski: 3rdly: Buckiee got dear, it use to be a cheep drink. BUT I suppose it's a cultural drink, more than anything else.

Kind of goes with what I'm saying bump up the price of the cheep stuff and then people will choice to buy the more expensive and higher quality stuff i.e buy alcoholic beverages that are produced in Scotland. And hopefully drink less of the stuff as a result.


BUY SCOTTISH ALOCHOLIC DRINKS It's a pure Scottish bonus in the minimal Alcoholic drinks pricing thing.
87

Grahamski,

Falkirk 23/06/2009 14:19:54
108
I think more than anything it is like a ned designer label.
I find this whole debate over alcohol really interesting. I remember my grandfather telling me that as a young communist he and his comrades joined forces with the churches and temperance movement to impose prohibition in the town he grew up in. That never left him and right up until he died he would have shut every bookie and pub in the town if he'd had his way.
This is not a new problem. I still don't think pricing is the answer. I would be more inclined to make the retailers and publicans more responsible for the costs of alcohol abuse.
88

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 23/06/2009 14:23:21
#106:

"The purpose of this legislation is not to punish responsible drinkers but to target those who are irresponsible."

That might be the obstensive desire, but it is far from how it will actually work out. Let me give you some examples, seeing as I have actually read all the proposals...

1. Raise legal off-licence age to 21: This will hit a huge number of totally responsible young people who normally drink at home rather than go to the pub and pay a lot more for their drink. Also, many of them could be smokers who prefer to drink in the privacy of their own home rather than be subject to our insane anti-smoking laws.

2. Separate aisles and checkouts in supermakets for drink: Separate aisles I can buy. We more or less have them in any case. Separate checkouts would cause an enormous inconvenience to shoppers and would result in huge queues during busy periods. Net gain, Nothing whatsoever.

3. Ever more rigid enforcement of the laws regarding drink: ...gave us a lot of the problems we face today.

4. Minimum pricing: The proposed minimum price will only hit the bargain basement offers generally taken advantage of by RESPONSIBLE people shopping in supermarkets. As has been pointed out here, it will have no effect on "ned" drinks like Buckfast, cider and alco-pops. It is also the thin end of the wedge which will allow them to gradually increase the price of drink in th esame way that stupid labour have gradually increased the price of petrol. Before we know it, drink will be double or triple what it costs now.
89

Tatties ower the side,

Johannesburg 23/06/2009 14:29:05
So if the cost today to get a bottle of wine onto the shelves is (say) 3pounds including some profit for everyone, then the Lib Damns say the price must be 5pounds minimum. So who gets the extra 2 pounds? Let us hope that it is not TESCOS!!!!!

90

Tatties ower the side,

Johannesburg 23/06/2009 14:31:18
Second Thought.

If I brew my own wine at home, do I have to go down to the Post office to pay the 2 pounds extra?
91

Eve,

Scotland 23/06/2009 14:32:18
#109 Grahamski: I think it should be cheaper to go to the pub/restuant/night club ect. and purchase alcholic drinks than buy them out of supermarkets. Permoting to the public how to drink responsibley and also build up the socialising in the communities again.

A bar staff member can refuse to serve some one whoses had to much to drink to protect everyones health. This just cant happen with carryouts, You've got all the drink at once and you could get really carreid away with the drinking and finish it at once. This might not get everyone in to trouble and might be ok health wise as once offs. BUT the apparent danagers are still their if someone is violent when drunk or binge drinking regualary.

I'd also like to see a limit to how many bottles and packs of alcholic beverages you can buy on one trip to the shops. May be with expections of a 2week run up to both Christmas and Hogmany.
92

,

23/06/2009 14:32:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
93

Eve,

Scotland 23/06/2009 14:38:52
#111 Tatties over the side: It shouldn't be, cause they are large and squeezes producers almost to the administrators to get the biggest slice of proffitt! Though it would be good is small corner shops would benefit. Where ever they extra money goes, I hope and suppose most other people hope this too that it goes to keep people in employment and employee more people their for improving our economy!!
94

Seannair,

Oban 23/06/2009 14:59:44
Could Grahamski actually be Eric Joyce -the tipsy Major?
95

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 23/06/2009 15:29:23
Eve:

"You've got all the drink at once and you could get really carreid away with the drinking and finish it at once."

True. You could. However most people do not. Just because it is possible to do something stupid does not mean that everyone is automatically going to do it. This is the whole ethos of what I am on about nowadays when laws are drawn up to protect us from ourselves.

When I go to the supermarket I buy anything up to a dozen cans of IPA at once. Even though I might only drink one or two a night, it suits me to buy a dozen at a time. Under your proposals I would not be able to do this, which would mean that I would have to make more frequent visits to the supermarket, burning extra fuel in the car in doing so. One thing is for certain, I wouldn't be drinking any less---I'd just be a lot more p!ssed off at having to go along with yet another load of nanny state rubbish and being treated like an idiot in yet another respect by this stupid government.

I have no idea which pub you work at, but if you ever did come across me out for a drink, it is unlikely that I would ever fall into the category where you would think twice about serving me. I would realise that I'd had enough long before things got to that stage. Accordingly, why should I be subject to stupid laws and brain-dead restrictions aimed at idiots?
96

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 23/06/2009 15:41:03
The medical profession seem convinced by the research.

I say give it a go for a trial period. Doing nothing is not an option.
97

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinuurgh 23/06/2009 15:50:55
#118:

You are very niaive if you think that this government would give anything like this "a try". They would impliment it and then lie about the results in order to keep it.

It's not necessarily a good idea to give things a try either. How would you feel if I suggested that when you get home, you give sticking your head in the oven and switching it on a "try"? After all, you won't know for certain what happens until you do, will you?

Of course, on balance, you could argue that sticking you head in an oven is likely to cause you severe burns which may result in death or severe brain damage and decline to give it a "try" on that basis.

Seeing as all reasoning points to the fact that the SNP proposals regarding alcohol are only going to hit the innocent, responsible majority whilst having no effect on the irresponsible minority it is perfectly reasonable to insist that we do not give this legislation a "try" either.
98

Yeah1,

23/06/2009 16:07:40
Clearly with Scotland suffering from thousands of alcohol-related deaths every year, and the taxpayer spending millions on health services to treat alcohol abuse, something needs to be done about Scotland's alcohol problem.

The Chief Medical Officer believes that "the evidence for imposing minimum pricing on alcohol is overwhelming" and that deaths from liver disease and other alcohol-related illnesses would drop due to minimum pricing.

Now clearly the Chief Medical Officer knows far more about health, alcohol problems etc than people like 'alternative fuelhead' so if he believes minimum pricing will be of benefit then I would support it.
99

,

23/06/2009 16:14:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
100

Marian,

23/06/2009 16:39:16
Norway and Sweden don't have the alcohol dependency problem that tribal followers of New Labour appear to have if we are go by their responses above. That is because they strictly control the price of alcohol and this financial deterrent ensures that consumption is kept at tolerable levels for socialists even.
101

Alan B,

23/06/2009 16:47:09
Alcohol taxation in pubs should be lowered. The age to get into pubs to drink alcohol should be lowered (16/17) , maybe beer only not hard liquer.

Increase the age for buying alcohol from off licences say 21.

And as such encourage drinking in supervised environments where drinking is social.

Try and look and work out what type of culture we want round alcohol and encourage that in a suttle manner.
102

TWC,

exLabour 23/06/2009 17:03:08
124 Alan B,

Aye might work, the only benefit I see for minimum price and raising the age to 21 would be to make it much harder for the 13/14 year olds we see today under the influence.
I was no better when I was young, I started at 15 and it was all about peer pressure I didn't even like the stuff. Now I have difficulty stopping, for a few nights, it is just so easy to drink too often.
103

Eve,

Scotland 23/06/2009 17:08:07
#117 Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head: "When I go to the supermarket I buy anything up to a dozen cans of IPA at once. Even though I might only drink one or two a night, it suits me to buy a dozen at a time.".....

Well done, you've mastered the art of drinking in moderation. Would you like a certificate?

"I would have to make more frequent visits to the supermarket, burning extra fuel in the car in doing so. One thing is for certain, I wouldn't be drinking any less---I'd just be a lot more p!ssed off.."

In less I'm mistake a dozen is 12 or 13 if its a bakers.
I said restrict the amounts of packs and bottles people can buy. Cans are generally bought in packs of like 4,6,12,24 I believe. If you buy up to a dozen per trip what I'm say possible wouldn't effect you at all or buy much. Giving the fact that I didn't say what the restriction should be.

No way was I suggesting that canned drinks should be sold individually. May be stop the 12 & 24 packs BUT the 4-6 packs are fine in concepts of sensible drinking.

Oh and by the way supermarkets also sell food, that being their primary function an all. Out of pure curiosity how often do you shop? Your no one of these households that does a monthly food shop are you?

Personally I'm at the supermarket every second day buy some fresh fruit and Veg.

While out buying yer 6pack you could also pick up some perishable fruit and veg the likes grapes, strawberries, oranges etc would make brilliant snacks to have through out the day..

P.S. What does IPA stand for? Cause I'm getting the International Phonetic Alphabet, when I goggle it.


104

Eve,

Scotland 23/06/2009 17:43:07
#129 Star spangled bannock: Oh, Thanks. Think I would preffer a can o' International Phonetic Alphabet.

Though funny enought I think I've heard people talking about Pally Ally before. Didnae know what they were on about at the time.

105

Calum Crubag,

23/06/2009 19:32:28
Where's the alternative solutions from the doomsayers here?

And don't say 'education'. Like no one knows that fags and booze are harmful! Why not do away with all laws and restrictions? We could just 'educate' people not to murder and steal?
106

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 23/06/2009 21:25:37
The unit pricing is not going to make a great deal of difference. The awareness this is generating is far greater.
107

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 23/06/2009 21:31:57
Conspiracy theorists are slow to blaming the pub owner lobby. On sales are well above any minimum pricing and they are the ones who are suffering.

Diddums.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Do you support Scotland’s new licensing laws, which come into effect now?
Yes, if they help curb our binge-drinking culture
No, people will still find the money to go boozing
No, these laws treat people like children

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.