50p a unit.

[DH1875]

Seen that this has now passed and is gonna be law up here from now on. Cheapest bottle of vodka/whisky is gonna be about £20 and don't know how their gonna price half bottles :confused:. There will be no more cheap bottles of wine from ASDA and the likes cause even then your looking at at least £6 a bottle. Even a bottle of Buckie is gonna hit you to at least £7.50 a bottle. Cheap wino drink, aye right.
Anyone fancy a booze run to Carlisle :greengrin.

[Speedy]

Seen that this has now passed and is gonna be law up here from now on. Cheapest bottle of vodka/whisky is gonna be about £20 and don't know how their gonna price half bottles :confused:. There will be no more cheap bottles of wine from ASDA and the likes cause even then your looking at at least £6 a bottle. Even a bottle of Buckie is gonna hit you to at least £7.50 a bottle. Cheap wino drink, aye right.
Anyone fancy a booze run to Carlisle :greengrin.

Buckie is already about £7.50 a bottle.

(Source: Working in a supermarket, not being a buckie drinker :greengrin)

What will be interesting is whether the more premium spirit brands increase their prices above the minimum so they are proportionally increased with the cheap brands.

[Future17]

Buckie is already about £7.50 a bottle.

(Source: Working in a supermarket, not being a buckie drinker :greengrin)

What will be interesting is whether the more premium spirit brands increase their prices above the minimum so they are proportionally increased with the cheap brands.

:agree:

Which won't be the fault of the Scottish Government, or this legislation specifically, but will probably be attributed by some as being so.

As Nicola Sturgeon has said, this isn't a cure for all Scotland's alcohol problems, but it is a sensible first step in what will be a long battle which has been ignored by too many for too long.

[lyonhibs]

Buckie is already about £7.50 a bottle.

(Source: Working in a supermarket, not being a buckie drinker :greengrin)

What will be interesting is whether the more premium spirit brands increase their prices above the minimum so they are proportionally increased with the cheap brands.

I can exclusively reveal that one of the big drinks manufacturers has been carrying out market research in Scotland aimed at working out what pricing strategy to follow should/once a minumum pricing policy comes in. :greengrin

Hot off the press, glamourous news etc

[Beefster]

:agree:

Which won't be the fault of the Scottish Government, or this legislation specifically, but will probably be attributed by some as being so.

As Nicola Sturgeon has said, this isn't a cure for all Scotland's alcohol problems, but it is a sensible first step in what will be a long battle which has been ignored by too many for too long.

Not IMHO. Another example of the state legislating for all to deal with the issues of the minority. Never mind dealing with the root causes of why people drink - let's just make it more expensive for everyone.

The fact that the Tories, supposedly a party with libertarian tendencies, are supporting the introduction of a minimum price is just beyond ridiculous too.

[Sylar]

About time.

I don't tend to buy cheap beer/vodka/wine, because quite frankly, it mostly tastes like pish, so because I tend to buy more expensive drink, it's not likely to impact on me but if it reduces the number of morons who go out on a night/weekend with the sole intention of getting pished and causing bother, then fine by me - nothing worse than being out and you have a collection of folk in the respective pub/bar who don't have the intelligence to say "when".

The next step is to force those who are STILL admitted to hospital as a result of binge drinking (either through alcohol poisoning or drunken violence) to pay for their treatment.

[Dinkydoo]

I don't know why people seem to think that this will help reduce the amount of alcohol some people consume.

[Hibs Class]

I don't know why people seem to think that this will help reduce the amount of alcohol some people consume.

:agree: I know someone with a serious alcohol problem and the things he/his family go without so he can buy his vodka are shocking - I don't see minimum pricing as likely to make any difference to his consumption.

[easty]

When does this kick in? Straight away?

[.Sean.]

About 8 quid for a 2 litre of Cider. Pish :panic:





Still, only an hour in a car to Berwick, stock up every couple of months. Easy.

[Godsahibby]

Interesting to see how the big supermarkets will get round this (which the inevitably will do) there was already a story before about online shopping that they could get round the laws because the site would come under English law.

[Hibs Class]

Interesting to see how the big supermarkets will get round this (which the inevitably will do) there was already a story before about online shopping that they could get round the laws because the site would come under English law.

I saw the story about fulfilling online purchases from england too. As far as in-store purchases are concerned though, I don't know if this will mean that the additional cost due to minimum pricing will just be profit for the stores, as it is minimum pricing rather than a tax. Or how they will deal with the meals for a tenner deals.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

About 8 quid for a 2 litre of Cider. Pish :panic:





Still, only an hour in a car to Berwick, stock up every couple of months. Easy.

I thought 50p per unit was a good idea but changed my mind when I read this. Not because I drink 2 litre bottles of cider (well, not since I was a student) but that really seems excessive and will punish more than just jakeys and chavs.

I agree the government has to do something but this seems a bit much. How much is 2 litres of cider these days? 4-5 quid?

[Beefster]

About time.

I don't tend to buy cheap beer/vodka/wine, because quite frankly, it mostly tastes like pish, so because I tend to buy more expensive drink, it's not likely to impact on me but if it reduces the number of morons who go out on a night/weekend with the sole intention of getting pished and causing bother, then fine by me - nothing worse than being out and you have a collection of folk in the respective pub/bar who don't have the intelligence to say "when".

The next step is to force those who are STILL admitted to hospital as a result of binge drinking (either through alcohol poisoning or drunken violence) to pay for their treatment.

It won't make the slightest bit of difference to pubs/clubs (or the drunkenness or otherwise of those who use them). They already charge way more than 50p per unit.

[JE89]

The next step is to force those who are STILL admitted to hospital as a result of binge drinking (either through alcohol poisoning or drunken violence) to pay for their treatment.

Indeed, along with those who smoke, eat unhealthy foods etc etc.

What I don't understand is who gains from this? The govt obviously but then who else?
I would also expect the use of recreational drugs to increase, something which will benefit nobody, except shady dealers who don't pay taxes.

Hopefully it falls below the EU competition guidelines and is therefore illegal.

Ironic that Scotland is the maker of possibly the best whiskey in the world yet it'll be the most expensive place to buy it.

[CropleyWasGod]

Indeed, along with those who smoke, eat unhealthy foods etc etc.

What I don't understand is who gains from this? The govt obviously but then who else?
I would also expect the use of recreational drugs to increase, something which will benefit nobody, except shady dealers who don't pay taxes.

Hopefully it falls below the EU competition guidelines and is therefore illegal.

Ironic that Scotland is the maker of possibly the best whiskey in the world yet it'll be the most expensive place to buy it.

Who gains? If the extent of alcohol-related illness and violence reduces, then we all gain.

By the way, there is no whiskey made in Scotland/ :wink:

[Jack]

It won't make the slightest bit of difference to pubs/clubs (or the drunkenness or otherwise of those who use them). They already charge way more than 50p per unit.

What it will do is maybe reduce the number of people who get tanked up before they go out.

Good bar staff, managers, are responsible for the folk on their premises. So are bad ones and they'll be found out.

[Jack]

Indeed, along with those who smoke, eat unhealthy foods etc etc.

What I don't understand is who gains from this? The govt obviously but then who else?
I would also expect the use of recreational drugs to increase, something which will benefit nobody, except shady dealers who don't pay taxes.

Hopefully it falls below the EU competition guidelines and is therefore illegal.

Ironic that Scotland is the maker of possibly the best whiskey in the world yet it'll be the most expensive place to buy it.

The supermarkets will take in more money, subject to everyone going to Berwick and Carlisle, and the Scottish Government intend to bring in a supermarket tax.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Who gains? If the extent of alcohol-related illness and violence reduces, then we all gain.

By the way, there is no whiskey made in Scotland/ :wink:



sacrilege :agree:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Ironic that Scotland is the maker of possibly the best whiskey in the world yet it'll be the most expensive place to buy it.

I don't think Scotland makes any whiskey, does it? ;-)

[speedy_gonzales]

Some light reading here> (http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/papers/occasional/eu-affordability.pdf)

From page 4:
This graph shows that there is no detectable relationship between alcohol affordability
and the harm/consumption ratio in the EU

I'm well aware that stats can be manipulated to reinforce an authors point, but I don't think the problem we have in Scotland(or the UK) is cheap alcohol.
I think it's an attitude, people who want/need to drink will find the means to do so.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Who gains? If the extent of alcohol-related illness and violence reduces, then we all gain.

By the way, there is no whiskey made in Scotland/ :wink:

Beat me to it!

[hibsbollah]

Its a move that hurts the jakey but doesnt affect the middle class £5.99 a bottle sauvignon blanc quaffer. Which is what was intended, of course.

[Gatecrasher]

where does the extra money go to?

[speedy_gonzales]

where does the extra money go to? Initially the retailers, but the SNP have thought about bringing out a supermarket tax, the classic "give with one hand and take away with the other!"

[JE89]

By the way, there is no whiskey made in Scotland/ :wink:

Fair enough, care to elaborate? I don't doubt your knowledge I am now rather intrigued :agree:

[Jack]

Fair enough, care to elaborate? I don't doubt your knowledge I am now rather intrigued :agree:

Scotland, like whisky has no E in it.

Ireland, like whiskey does.

[JE89]

Scotland, like whisky has no E in it.

Ireland, like whiskey does.

I wrote 'whisky' originally before Firefox highlighted it as wrong and therefore I changed it. Thought I was about to learn something interesting as well.

[Beefster]

What it will do is maybe reduce the number of people who get tanked up before they go out.

Good bar staff, managers, are responsible for the folk on their premises. So are bad ones and they'll be found out.

I'm not sure it will. If folk can afford to go out drinking for the night, they can afford an extra Xp for their 'pre-match' alcohol.

You might be right about bar staff but introducing a minimum cost per unit will make absolutely hee-haw difference to anything to do with bar staff competence.

As Hibsbollah basically said, it's aimed at a subsection of society (a lot of whom live in poverty). It'll just lead to a lot of folk living in poverty spending an even greater proportion of their income on alcohol and makes no attempt to deal with the root causes.

Unless anyone is seriously suggesting that many alcoholics are going to say "I really need a drink but it's now a couple of quid more expensive to get out of my tree. I better leave it and do something productive....".

[Steve-O]

Agree it won't make a difference. Drink over here is more expensive than Scotland, and there are still the same problems. Pre-loading, binge drinking and all the associated problems that come with it. It is ingrained in society and it will take more than making it slightly more expensive to change it.

[VickMackie]

If anything it should hopefully make it just a bit too expensive for kids to get a hold of. When I was 14/15 I was drinking every weekend by doing a paper round!

This might just push it out of reach for people that age.

Whilst im indifferent about the proposal I think it's mainly been driven by large drinks companies in the pub trade.

The pub trade are always bleating about how they can't compete. Well it's simply because people don't want to pay 3.65 a pint when the go out,

[danhibees1875]

How does that effect pubs/clubs? Will the price be in affect for wholesale?

Also, say for arguments sake Vodka is £20 for a bottle. If Tesco announce a 'meal deal' where you buy a bottle of Vodka and get a free steak, whole chicken and caramel freddo(Some reasonable combination of food to put the price back down to what it currently is) how does that go down?

[CropleyWasGod]

I wrote 'whisky' originally before Firefox highlighted it as wrong and therefore I changed it. Thought I was about to learn something interesting as well.

You did... Firefox is mince :greengrin

[Peevemor]

Agree it won't make a difference. Drink over here is more expensive than Scotland, and there are still the same problems. Pre-loading, binge drinking and all the associated problems that come with it. It is ingrained in society and it will take more than making it slightly more expensive to change it.

In France, compared to the UK, booze is more expensive in pubs/clubs and less expensive in shops.

Every few months I'm treated to a report on the French news showing whatever British city centre on a Saturday night, saying how awful it is that there are crowds of blootered people. What they don't mention however, is that the French consume more alcohol per head than the Brits, only they drink a lot more at home. The problem with this is that drinking at home often involves spirits.

The norm here isn't the Friday night armageddon session in the pub, but the 'apero' (aperitif) at a friend's house, which often involves necking half a bottle of whisky or Ricard each before heading off for something to eat.

No matter how it's taxed, those that want to drink will find a way.

[RyeSloan]

50p now...then how long before it doesn't have the impact they expect and it gets increased, then increased some more all in the name of 'public health'.

It's a blunt instrument at best and will alsmost certainly do what the high price of tobacco has done, create a blackmarket where quality cannot be controlled nor consumption measured.

I'm also unconvinced how they can trot out '500 lives saved' with such assurance...Not only does this seem far too high (almost 40% of currnet alcohol related deaths) this would seem to be some sort of asumption that a x % increase in the price will cause an x % decrease in consumption which on average would save x% of lives...very lilkely though that heavy drinkers who risk killing themsleves with alcohol will not be put off by a 50p minimum price in any way so the measure will merely inflict higher costs on responsible drinkers. The result of which brings me back to my first point..this is only the start of a concerted government effort to force it's population to reduce it's alcohol consumption.

[easty]

50p now...then how long before it doesn't have the impact they expect and it gets increased, then increased some more all in the name of 'public health'.

It's a blunt instrument at best and will alsmost certainly do what the high price of tobacco has done, create a blackmarket where quality cannot be controlled nor consumption measured.

I'm also unconvinced how they can trot out '500 lives saved' with such assurance...Not only does this seem far too high (almost 40% of currnet alcohol related deaths) this would seem to be some sort of asumption that a x % increase in the price will cause an x % decrease in consumption which on average would save x% of lives...very lilkely though that heavy drinkers who risk killing themsleves with alcohol will not be put off by a 50p minimum price in any way so the measure will merely inflict higher costs on responsible drinkers. The result of which brings me back to my first point..this is only the start of a concerted government effort to force it's population to reduce it's alcohol consumption.

I'm sure I read this is in on a "trial basis" for 6 years, and if it's not having the desired effect then the minimum pricing will be scrapped. Or did I dream that?

[DH1875]

You lot are missing the point though. People will always drink and be on the look out for the cheap stuff. What's to stop the local drug dealer from jumping in a van with a couple of cronies and heading for the first supermarket over the border and then filling it with booze. It could end up becoming more lucrative than the drugs trade and will only end up fueling organised crime.

[hibsbollah]

50p now...then how long before it doesn't have the impact they expect and it gets increased, then increased some more all in the name of 'public health'.

It's a blunt instrument at best and will alsmost certainly do what the high price of tobacco has done, create a blackmarket where quality cannot be controlled nor consumption measured.

I'm also unconvinced how they can trot out '500 lives saved' with such assurance...Not only does this seem far too high (almost 40% of currnet alcohol related deaths) this would seem to be some sort of asumption that a x % increase in the price will cause an x % decrease in consumption which on average would save x% of lives...very lilkely though that heavy drinkers who risk killing themsleves with alcohol will not be put off by a 50p minimum price in any way so the measure will merely inflict higher costs on responsible drinkers. The result of which brings me back to my first point..this is only the start of a concerted government effort to force it's population to reduce it's alcohol consumption.

I agree with your general point about public health and the toothless nature of this initiative. However, this is emphatically NOT a public health driven initiative, its a political initiative. Jakeys dont vote, and hammering the underclass has little political risk, and makes it look like they are doing something about our horrific alcohol abuse statistics. The truth is, as most health professionals know, is that alcohol abuse among women and the middle aged and professional classes is a much bigger concern from a financial perspective than the cider fuelled jakey. These people dont visit primary care regularly and are generally excluded from state provision (and therefore state expenditure). Contrary to popular belief, theyre not a big drain on the medical welfare state.

The real health timebomb is the stratospheric rise in liver disease across all social groups, caused by daily heavy drinking at home which isnt characterised by antisocial behaviour or obvious signs of misuse. Dealing with that is a much tougher ask and will probably take generations.

Slainte :greengrin

[Scouse Hibee]

How does that effect pubs/clubs? Will the price be in affect for wholesale?

Also, say for arguments sake Vodka is £20 for a bottle. If Tesco announce a 'meal deal' where you buy a bottle of Vodka and get a free steak, whole chicken and caramel freddo(Some reasonable combination of food to put the price back down to what it currently is) how does that go down?

Not allowed, that would be classed a an irresponsible alcohol promotion.

[heretoday]

We've become a nation of hedonists and we see it as our "right" to get slaughtered every weekend and risk our health and safety and that of others. These price hikes won't make a hoot of difference.

[s.a.m]

I'm undecided about this. I do wonder, though, if there will be a 'displacemen't problem with a few of the categories of drinkers the policy is meant to be protecting. Might rising prices of cheap bevvy push young people and jakeys into solvent abuse and cheap drugs instead?

[Dinkydoo]

The Asda near Carlilse delivers to Dumfries, Annan and Gretna............I can see it getting a whole load of extra business once this comes into play. :wink:

[steakbake]

I agree with your general point about public health and the toothless nature of this initiative. However, this is emphatically NOT a public health driven initiative, its a political initiative. Jakeys dont vote, and hammering the underclass has little political risk, and makes it look like they are doing something about our horrific alcohol abuse statistics. The truth is, as most health professionals know, is that alcohol abuse among women and the middle aged and professional classes is a much bigger concern from a financial perspective than the cider fuelled jakey. These people dont visit primary care regularly and are generally excluded from state provision (and therefore state expenditure). Contrary to popular belief, theyre not a big drain on the medical welfare state.

The real health timebomb is the stratospheric rise in liver disease across all social groups, caused by daily heavy drinking at home which isnt characterised by antisocial behaviour or obvious signs of misuse. Dealing with that is a much tougher ask and will probably take generations.

Slainte :greengrin

There is clearly a health cost with regular drinking damaging livers/kidneys etc so I agree in some respects with what you are saying.

However, you have to factor in the cost of dealing with alcohol aggravated and anti-social behaviour when you look into the total cost of alcohol on the public purse.

I really don't think it's accurate to think that your local pissheads/cider fuelled jakey who can't handle his drink is less of a cost on the public purse than the pringle clad gent who sups too much wine with his succulent lamb at home in the leafy suburbs. Surely that's not what you mean?

Final point about 'hammering the underclass': lets not forget that consuming alcohol is not necessary for human existence. Nobody "has to" have a drink. It's nice to do so and the government should encourage responsible attitudes to drink. However, it remains entirely optional and a lifestyle choice. It's not the government's role to facilitate our lifestyle and leisure choices at any cost.

On the actual plans: imho, the idea is right, the execution is terrible. The money will go back to the retailer and enrich some of the already richest companies in the UK. With the relatively limited taxation powers the ScotGov has at its disposal, I suppose for them it was a choice of be seen to do something, or be seen doing nothing. I'd far rather they took a longer term view, made the case for setting duty rates (government tax intake) on alcohol locally and go from there. Heard someone say yesterday that yes, this will enrich the retailers in some way, but then the SNP will bring about a supermarket tax to recoup that. It's a work around, but not a particularly good one.

[Judas Iscariot]

Surely now a minimum of 75p a fag will be next?

[Scouse Hibee]

Funny how in lots of places abroad where it's cheaper to drink than here the same drink fuelled culture doesn't exist! Culture.......................there in lies the problem.

[danhibees1875]

Alcohol should be cheap. True story.

[poolman]

Totally political ploy by this lot

IMO there are FAR more people who drink sensibly at home who dont drink cheap cider all night and visit Hunter Square

What about OAP's who lioke a tipple at home......why should they be bracketed with a lot of cider-heads

And as for that odious little numpty Sturgeon, what possible credentials has she got to be Health Secretary :rolleyes: she studied Law at Uni FFS.

****in little Hobbit

[steakbake]

Totally political ploy by this lot

IMO there are FAR more people who drink sensibly at home who dont drink cheap cider all night and visit Hunter Square

What about OAP's who lioke a tipple at home......why should they be bracketed with a lot of cider-heads

And as for that odious little numpty Sturgeon, what possible credentials has she got to be Health Secretary :rolleyes: she studied Law at Uni FFS.

****in little Hobbit

Far be it from me to defend Nicola Sturgeon, but Andy Kerr MSP (he of the excellent piece of legislation that was the smoking ban) has a BA in Social Sciences from Glasgow Caley. I don't see how his qualification fits with his remit but in the case of the smoking ban, I thought he did his job well.

I would have thought a law degree would come in handy for someone who has ministerial oversight for enacting legislation?

[The_Exile]

I won't decide if I'm raging or not until I see what effect it has on the price of a bottle of Black Label :agree:

[JeMeSouviens]

Seen that this has now passed and is gonna be law up here from now on. Cheapest bottle of vodka/whisky is gonna be about £20 and don't know how their gonna price half bottles :confused:. There will be no more cheap bottles of wine from ASDA and the likes cause even then your looking at at least £6 a bottle. Even a bottle of Buckie is gonna hit you to at least £7.50 a bottle. Cheap wino drink, aye right.
Anyone fancy a booze run to Carlisle :greengrin.

At 50p/unit:

A 70cl bottle of 40% spirit would be £14.

A 75cl bottle of 13% wine would be £4.88.

[JohnStephens91]

Supermarkets like Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury's etc all dispatch online orders of alcohol from England if it is a multi-buy deal ie 1 can 90p or 6 for £5, as it is illegal to do this in Scotland. I would imagine that would happen with the minimum pricing coming into effect as well, if you order a litre of of whisky it will be dispatched from Berwick or Carlisle (or so they say, I reckon they just send it from Scotland).

England and Wales are now looking at minimum pricing at 40p per unit too, so better stock up on the spirits now.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Hey ... why stop there:

What about a weigh bridge outside McDonalds ... crap BMI nae burger.

Petrol should be £5.00 a litre ... that will stop so many folk getting run over.

But we should do stuff ethically IMO so the billions taken in tax from petrol, burgers, booze and fags ( none of which funds the NHS of course ) should be given to charity.

As far as I am aware, according to the government smokers cost the NHS between 5 and 6 billion each year ( I presume 1000 million in a billion as per the American system ) perhaps someone can enlighten me. Apparently there are approximately 10 million smokers in the UK according to ASH the anti smoking group.

If that is the case and for the purpose of this post presuming that all of them buy one packet of fags per day, with the tax paid on each packet being £4.15 that means that every year smokers put over 15 billion into the governments coffers. That must be a conservative estimate as a lot of smokers smoke more than 20 a day and I think that now the tax is more than £4.15

I am not trying to make a case for smoking ... its bad for you, end of story ... dont do it like I do ... please !

But it is an inescapable fact, is it not, that far from being a drain on the NHS smokers are actually helping to fund it.