Alcohol

[Jim44]

Alcohol minimum price will be introduced in Scotland. Waste of time and unfair on the Scots. The goal is to cut down alcoholic illness but there’s not a hope in hell of that succeeding by bumping up the price. All we’ll end up with is poorer alcoholics.

[-Jonesy-]

Think it's a fantastic move and a very bold one at that. It's not targeting poor drinkers, it's targeting the brewers who sell super strong ultra cheap booze who themselves target poor drinkers. The aim is to completely eliminate that end of the market, it's not going to affect anyone's drinking regime unless that regime is 3l of 8% cider every night. And if it is, you have a problem man!

[Mr White]

Alcohol minimum price will be introduced in Scotland. Waste of time and unfair on the Scots. The goal is to cut down alcoholic illness but there’s not a hope in hell of that succeeding by bumping up the price. All we’ll end up with is poorer alcoholics.

The unit pricing they're proposing will only really affect low cost, high ABV drinks like some brands of wine and cider won't it? From the little Ive read about the proposals I think it's a good idea, as a part of an overall public health approach to change people's attitudes to alcohol in Scotland.

[The_Exile]

We are a country of jakey *******s, always have been, always will be, and as someone who doesn't drink, I demand they make it a £1 a unit :greengrin

[-Jonesy-]

We are a country of jakey *******s, always have been, always will be, and as someone who doesn't drink, I demand they make it a £1 a unit :greengrin

The 50p was decided 5 years ago and there is already talk of a 70p minimum.

[Tornadoes70]

Alcohol minimum price will be introduced in Scotland. Waste of time and unfair on the Scots. The goal is to cut down alcoholic illness but there’s not a hope in hell of that succeeding by bumping up the price. All we’ll end up with is poorer alcoholics.

Its extraordinarily unfair on the poorer folk in our society. It certainly won't affect the well-off who'll continue to be able to afford their normal quaff. It strikes me as being of a puritanical action against the have-nots and poorly paid. I'm not basing my opinion for any political reason here, its solely based on my opinion of a government being in control of pricing on alcohol that will predominantly hit the poorest in society. Looking forward to tales of cross border drink runs :greengrin.

[Speedy]

The unit pricing they're proposing will only really affect low cost, high ABV drinks like some brands of wine and cider won't it? From the little Ive read about the proposals I think it's a good idea, as a part of an overall public health approach to change people's attitudes to alcohol in Scotland.

It'll impact bottles of spirits and multipack cans of lager/cider as well.

Looking at £13/£14 minimum for a 70cl of spirits and £10 for 12 cans.

[CropleyWasGod]

Alcohol minimum price will be introduced in Scotland. Waste of time and unfair on the Scots. The goal is to cut down alcoholic illness but there’s not a hope in hell of that succeeding by bumping up the price. All we’ll end up with is poorer alcoholics.Experts in alcohol addiction issues are generally agreed that the best way of controlling consumption is by raising the price.

However, it will be interesting to see how the stats go. I see that there is a review period of 5 (6?) years built in. Whilst i am not sure that is long enough, it's a sensible provision.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Tornadoes70]

Experts in alcohol addiction issues are generally agreed that the best way of controlling consumption is by raising the price.

However, it will be interesting to see how the stats go. I see that there is a review period of 5 (6?) years built in. Whilst i am not sure that is long enough, it's a sensible provision.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

No offence but that's just stating the obvious. Its which section of society that will be most affected that counts and that too is stating the obvious however I'll put it another way and say it won't be the well-off who will be.

[Just Alf]

It's 6 years, basically after that time, if the legislation hasn't been renewed it lapses.

On the face of it, it seems like a good idea then again it doesn't impact me..

What's maybe not fair is what about a low income family whose equivalent of my 4 or 5 beers in the pub (e.g. a bottle of cheap cider) starts to become difficult to afford?


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Mr White]

It'll impact bottles of spirits and multipack cans of lager/cider as well.

Looking at £13/£14 minimum for a 70cl of spirits and £10 for 12 cans.

Ok cheers. Still think that's not that bad and if it helps reduce the impact that alcohol abuse has on society through the affects on the health service, criminal justice system etc then it'll be a good thing.

[-Jonesy-]

So people drink K Cider and diamond white just as an light evening tipple after work and it's not exsculsively bought by veteran jakes or 16 year olds with an older brother?

Surprised by this if true.

[lord bunberry]

No offence but that's just stating the obvious. Its which section of society that will be most affected that counts and that too is stating the obvious however I'll put it another way and say it won't be the well-off who will be.
It’s the argument that’s used to justify minimum pricing because it’s worked with smoking. The difference is that smoking is bad for everyone, alcohol isn’t if drunk in moderation. It won’t have that much effect on most people, but I also doubt it will have that much effect on problem drinking either.
For it to have an impact on alcoholism it would need to be prohibitively expensive, and that would lead to resentment from moderate drinkers.

[Mr White]

It’s the argument that’s used to justify minimum pricing because it’s worked with smoking. The difference is that smoking is bad for everyone, alcohol isn’t if drunk in moderation. It won’t have that much effect on most people, but I also doubt it will have that much effect on problem drinking either.
For it to have an impact on alcoholism it would need to be prohibitively expensive, and that would lead to resentment from moderate drinkers.

It depends how you define impact. It won't make a massive difference but even a small change could potentially save a few lives and reduce weekend A&E admissions. Worth it if so and small changes as part of a bigger plan is the way to go IMO.

[Tornadoes70]

It depends how you define impact. It won't make a massive difference but even a small change could potentially save a few lives and reduce weekend A&E admissions. Worth it if so and small changes as part of a bigger plan is the way to go IMO.

All aimed at the poorest in society as it will have zero effect on the haves.

[lord bunberry]

It depends how you define impact. It won't make a massive difference but even a small change could potentially save a few lives and reduce weekend A&E admissions. Worth it if so and small changes as part of a bigger plan is the way to go IMO.

Maybe I should’ve said meaningful impact then. I think you’re right in what you say, but the proposed unit pricing would make up a tiny part of the overall bigger plan.

[Mr White]

All aimed at the poorest in society as it will have zero effect on the haves.

That's quite a sweeping generalisation. The aim is to increase awareness of the effects of drinking. Mostly through education, but also through legislation like this and tighter controls on advertising of alcohol. Everyone will benefit if Scotland can improve it's heart and liver disease, antisocial behaviour and domestic violence statistics.

If you want to see it as an attack on the poor then by all means crack on with that but it's a misguided and short-sighted view in my opinion.

[Tornadoes70]

That's quite a sweeping generalisation. The aim is to increase awareness of the effects of drinking. Mostly through education, but also through legislation like this and tighter controls on advertising of alcohol. Everyone will benefit if Scotland can improve it's heart and liver disease, antisocial behaviour and domestic violence statistics.

If you want to see it as an attack on the poor then by all means crack on with that but it's a misguided and short-sighted view in my opinion.

Surely you wouldn't argue against that its factually true that by increasing a bottle of spirits by a few pounds it will have zero impact on the well-off?

A few pounds on the other hand is a meal for a relatively poorer person whose budget is guided by every penny being a prisoner.

It won't even effect yourself but hey ho.

[ronaldo7]

This part of the Minimum Unit pricing hits the spot for me. The policy has over 40 different ways to try and alleviate our drink problem in Scotland.

Let's give it a try.

"There is strong international evidence that tackling price - as part of a package of measures, including education and diversion - can help reduce alcohol consumption and related harm."

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Health/Services/Alcohol/minimum-pricing

[Mr White]

Surely you wouldn't argue against that its factually true that by increasing a bottle of spirits by a few pounds it will have zero impact on the well-off?

A few pounds on the other hand is a meal for a relatively poorer person whose budget is guided by every penny being a prisoner.

It won't even effect yourself but hey ho.

And your reason for thinking that is.....?

If it's purely because of my location then once more it's misguided and short sighted. I've got close relatives who work in the health service in Scotland and anything that might cut down, even slightly, the misery and avoidable premature deaths that they see every week is definitely a good thing.

[CropleyWasGod]

That's quite a sweeping generalisation. The aim is to increase awareness of the effects of drinking. Mostly through education, but also through legislation like this and tighter controls on advertising of alcohol. Everyone will benefit if Scotland can improve it's heart and liver disease, antisocial behaviour and domestic violence statistics.

If you want to see it as an attack on the poor then by all means crack on with that but it's a misguided and short-sighted view in my opinion.I'm with you.

We have tried many things to reduce the horrendous effects of alcohol on society. Those effects are not only illness-related, there's alcohol-related violence of many types, as well as the financial burden on all of us of the health issues.

I'm not always keen on the so-called nanny-state, but sometimes governments have to show us the lead on social issues. We're relatively newly in to the smoking ban, but from what I read there are signs that it is having a positive effect. If that's the case, that can only help the case for at least giving this a trial.



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Tornadoes70]

And your reason for thinking that is.....?

If it's purely because of my location then once more it's misguided and short sighted. I've got close relatives who work in the health service in Scotland and anything that might cut down, even slightly, the misery and avoidable premature deaths that they see every week is definitely a good thing.

There's some merit to your points there granted.

[brianmc]

So people drink K Cider and diamond white just as an light evening tipple after work and it's not exsculsively bought by veteran jakes or 16 year olds with an older brother?

Surprised by this if true.

My old mum would have a couple of diamond whites of an evening when her and my dad popped into their local (he'd usually have a couple of Newcy Broons) - guess I can colour you surprised eh?

[danhibees1875]

I'm all for the idea. If I'm honest, we probably don't have a healthy relationship with alcohol (generally speaking) and doing something about it is a step in the right direction.

It will be interesting to see the pricing strategy of the slightly more premium brands that won't be directly effected by the minimum price. If Asda smart price vodka has to go from £10 to £15, does a £20 bottle of Smirnoff put itself up to £25 to keep the differential or do they maintain that price and sweep up some extra drinkers who'll pay an extra £5(but previously didn't want to pay an extra £10). I wouldn't be so sure that only the low cost, high % drinks will see their prices change.

[Hibrandenburg]

On the surface it looks like it's directed at young folks with little expendable income with the aim to discourage them from starting to drink excessively too early. It will probably backfire because the general rule of capitalism states that if something is more expensive it is therefore of more value and thus more desirable.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The unit pricing they're proposing will only really affect low cost, high ABV drinks like some brands of wine and cider won't it? From the little Ive read about the proposals I think it's a good idea, as a part of an overall public health approach to change people's attitudes to alcohol in Scotland.

Ultimately none of us know if it will work, but at least they are trying something - i think its worth trying so credit to the Scottish Govt for at least, trying something.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

All aimed at the poorest in society as it will have zero effect on the haves.

And is that wrong?

The poorest in society will overwhelmingly cost the state the most, and so this move is targeted at where the problem lies.

Plus it is not aimed at the poor - it is aimed at problem drinkers.

[lapsedhibee]

We're relatively newly in to the smoking ban, but from what I read there are signs that it is having a positive effect. If that's the case, that can only help the case for at least giving this a trial.

Comparisons with action on smoking are all very well, so long as no-one is going to suggest that children in a car will suffer the effects of "secondary fumes" if the driver quaffs a few beers during the school run.

[lapsedhibee]

It’s the argument that’s used to justify minimum pricing because it’s worked with smoking. The difference is that smoking is bad for everyone, alcohol isn’t if drunk in moderation.

Isn't current government policy that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption? Think guidelines are set to correlate with low risk, not no risk.

[CropleyWasGod]

Comparisons with action on smoking are all very well, so long as no-one is going to suggest that children in a car will suffer the effects of "secondary fumes" if the driver quaffs a few beers during the school run.Yeah, i get that. My point was more that actually trying something different has to be preferable to doing nothing.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

What effect will this have, if any, on multipack lagers and so on in supermarkets? I wonder if in an unitentional way this could help the struggling pub trade by removing the huge disparity in price between a drink in a bar and drinking at home. It's not that much of a stretch to say that 3 drinks in a pub at the moment could buy you enough lager in a supermarket to get you completely out of it.

I like the idea as I'm not a fan of drinking at home and when I do it's a decent beer, wine or whisky anyway. We don't have a great relationship with alcohol in this country and trying something is better than nothing. If it doesn't work then there's always an option to try something else.

[lapsedhibee]

Yeah, i get that. My point was more that actually trying something different has to be preferable to doing nothing.

:agree:

[GlesgaeHibby]

What effect will this have, if any, on multipack lagers and so on in supermarkets? I wonder if in an unitentional way this could help the struggling pub trade by removing the huge disparity in price between a drink in a bar and drinking at home. It's not that much of a stretch to say that 3 drinks in a pub at the moment could buy you enough lager in a supermarket to get you completely out of it.

I like the idea as I'm not a fan of drinking at home and when I do it's a decent beer, wine or whisky anyway. We don't have a great relationship with alcohol in this country and trying something is better than nothing. If it doesn't work then there's always an option to try something else.

Agree, we have to try something. What's annoyed me about this debate is that opposition politicians and those opposed to the idea have slated it for years, but have yet to come up with a credible alternative. Scotland does have an alcohol problem and I'm glad the government are being bold enough to try something to tackle it.

[RIP]

I am an alcoholic. 10 years sober.

I've run AA groups 95% of whom are binge drinkers on high strength gut rot cider, lager, fortified wine and vodka.

This should have been introduced 20 years ago. Thousands of lives could have been saved.

[steakbake]

Enjoyed reading the below the line comments in the EEN today absolutely beeling about the decision. Lots of fantasy stories about booze cruises to Berwick...aye right - a hundred mile round trip to save a tenner.

Sometimes, people don't even realise others need saved from themselves. Like the smoking ban, this makes sense.

[lord bunberry]

Isn't current government policy that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption? Think guidelines are set to correlate with low risk, not no risk.
The advice seems to be 14 units per week.
https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/alcohol-facts/alcoholic-drinks-units/latest-uk-alcohol-unit-guidance/
I only did a quick search so that might not be the most up to date.

[snooky]

While I agree with the good intentions of this, I'm totally against it.
Some jakey who drinks say 6 cans of cider a day will still drink the same. They'll get the additional money from the family food bill so it will be the kids who will do without. Either that or resort to petty crime.
I'm fed up with Governments dictating to me what I can do and what I can't do just so they can control irresponsible minorities.
Another nail in the Freedom coffin - despite, as I said at the start, its good intentions.

[Radium]

I always thought this was targeted at low cost high strength drinks.

3l bottle of Frosty Jacks cider contains 22 units of alcohol.





It currently costs about £3.60 ... would be at least £11 with a 50 limit.

Whilst I accept some of the arguments around addiction and cost not always being a barrier, selling alcohol this cheap is pretty scandalous.


Ironically Buckfast only contains about 11 units so price probably won’t be affected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

The advice seems to be 14 units per week.
https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/alcohol-facts/alcoholic-drinks-units/latest-uk-alcohol-unit-guidance/
I only did a quick search so that might not be the most up to date.

Drinkaware is largely funded by the alcohol industry (manufacturers and retailers). Note that site does not say it is safe to limit drinking to 14 units a week, but that it is safest. A clear fudge.

This is from the Chief Medical Officers' actual review (my emphasis): The risk of developing a range of illnesses (including, for example, cancers of the mouth, throat and breast) increases with any amount you drink on a regular basis.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/489795/summary.pdf

[RyeSloan]

Hurrah! For once a government policy that is not going to cost me more!

I'm all for proposals that cut problem drinking but I'm pretty sure this 'minimum price' is probably too low so I would expect it to creep up pretty soon. It's a tough balancing act as we know humans are pretty inventive when it comes to circumnavigating falsely high prices (or even outright prohibition...think the drug trade)

I'm also not sure that handing the money to retailers (yet again) is the most effective route...I would like to have seen the extra money raised go towards helping the services that suffer the costs of alcoholism.

[danhibees1875]

An interesting point above as to why this is in the form of a minimum price and not as a tax. It feels like a very similar situation to us consuming too much sugar too cheaply and that was dealt with via a tax.

[Pretty Boy]

I always thought this was targeted at low cost high strength drinks.

3l bottle of Frosty Jacks cider contains 22 units of alcohol.





It currently costs about £3.60 ... would be at least £11 with a 50 limit.

Whilst I accept some of the arguments around addiction and cost not always being a barrier, selling alcohol this cheap is pretty scandalous.


Ironically Buckfast only contains about 11 units so price probably won’t be affected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Buckfast has never been a cheap drink, it costs more than a lot of half decent supermarket wines. It's never been a drink choice of chronic alcoholics either though and I'd wager that part of that is down to the cost. £7 for a 750ml 15% fortified wine or £3.50 for a 3 litre 8% white cider? Easy decision. Buckfast isn't without it's issues of course but it's a different group.

[CropleyWasGod]

An interesting point above as to why this is in the form of a minimum price and not as a tax. It feels like a very similar situation to us consuming too much sugar too cheaply and that was dealt with via a tax.I presume the thinking was that a balance has to be struck between the public health issues and the protection of jobs etc. Also, if a tax was introduced, it would have to be across the board, and not just on the "problem" low-cost drink.

By raising prices, and reducing consumption, it is likely that there will be minimal effect on the sellers' profits, thus protecting jobs and keeping the Treasury's share static.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

While I agree with the good intentions of this, I'm totally against it.
Some jakey who drinks say 6 cans of cider a day will still drink the same. They'll get the additional money from the family food bill so it will be the kids who will do without. Either that or resort to petty crime.
I'm fed up with Governments dictating to me what I can do and what I can't do just so they can control irresponsible minorities.
Another nail in the Freedom coffin - despite, as I said at the start, its good intentions.We can't know any of that until the effects of the legislation are known. No other country in the world has gone down this route.

As for the "irresponsible minority", as a caring society, we have a duty to protect them. As an uncaring society, we have the right to minimise the amount that they currently cost us.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Killiehibbie]

We can't know any of that until the effects of the legislation are known. No other country in the world has gone down this route.

As for the "irresponsible minority", as a caring society, we have a duty to protect them. As an uncaring society, we have the right to minimise the amount that they currently cost us.

Sent from my SM-A510F using TapatalkCanada has had it for years.

[Hiber-nation]

Canada has had it for years.

Is there not a big difference between individual states?

[Killiehibbie]

Is there not a big difference between individual states?It would seem so.

There is a huge variation across Canada in the way minimum prices are set. Saskatchewan gets top marks for a comprehensive system linked to alcoholic strength; the Atlantic provinces (including Nova Scotia and New Brunswick) have the highest rates; Ontario indexes minimum prices annually to the cost of living; Québec indexes minimum prices but only for beer; Alberta has minimum bar prices; British Columbia has higher minimum prices linked to alcohol strength in order to offset more convenient access to alcohol.

[-Jonesy-]

While I agree with the good intentions of this, I'm totally against it.
Some jakey who drinks say 6 cans of cider a day will still drink the same. They'll get the additional money from the family food bill so it will be the kids who will do without. Either that or resort to petty crime.
I'm fed up with Governments dictating to me what I can do and what I can't do just so they can control irresponsible minorities.
Another nail in the Freedom coffin - despite, as I said at the start, its good intentions.

So your own personal liberties and freedoms are being trodden on because retailers have to double the price of budget alcohol?

Right oh then....

[Tornadoes70]

An interesting point above as to why this is in the form of a minimum price and not as a tax. It feels like a very similar situation to us consuming too much sugar too cheaply and that was dealt with via a tax.

In reality it is a regressive form of tax with any extra revenue if any absorbed by the retailer. Regressive as it will hit the poorest, the poorly paid and even those on modest incomes the hardest as the extra few pounds on spirits etc having zero effect on the most well off in society but it will mean the worst off in society having to decide where best to spend that extra few pounds and some will i'd imagine spend that wee bit less on groceries or some other part of their budget in order to still enjoy a drink at the weekend.

It may hit pubs too as they will still have to buy in their bottles of spirits etc.

I realise I'm going against the popular opinion but hey ho I'm entitled to mine I hope.

GGTTH

[CropleyWasGod]

Canada has had it for years.See, that's what I thought, yet the media are dubbing us the first "country" to do it.

As has been said, though, each province has different systems, so I suppose the media is correct.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

In reality it is a regressive form of tax with any extra revenue if any absorbed by the retailer. Regressive as it will hit the poorest, the poorly paid and even those on modest incomes the hardest as the extra few pounds on spirits etc having zero effect on the most well off in society but it will mean the worst off in society having to decide where best to spend that extra few pounds and some will i'd imagine spend that wee bit less on groceries or some other part of their budget in order to still enjoy a drink at the weekend.

It may hit pubs too as they will still have to buy in their bottles of spirits etc.

I realise I'm going against the popular opinion but hey ho I'm entitled to mine I hope.

GGTTHYou say "some" will spend less on groceries. You may be right in that, but if it is only "some", that means that "most" will reduce their alcohol intake. That's a success in my book, both in terms of social issues and in setting examples to kids.



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Tornadoes70]

You say "some" will spend less on groceries. You may be right in that, but if it is only "some", that means that "most" will reduce their alcohol intake. That's a success in my book, both in terms of social issues and in setting examples to kids.



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

It won't have any effect on anyone from the better off and most well off in society in reducing a single drop of their alcohol intake which is why it is regressive.

i don't think it will hit the real problem drinkers either as they will find a way of maintaining their addiction. It will most probably in my opinion hit those who are poorly paid and on very modest incomes the hardest.

I'm in danger of repeating myself a good deal so I'll give it a rest here on this issue.

GGTTH

[Sylar]

I'm somewhere in between.

Something absolutely has to be done, but imlementing policy alone with no supplementary programes is a blunt instrument that isn't going to guarantee success.

What we really need is behavioural change, and in that regard, I understand why the Scottish Government are trying a price-modification approach - it worked with the plastic bag in shops. But our relationship with alcohol in the UK is far more complex than that. If this policy is part of a bigger agenda, then I support it. If this policy gets implemented, then ministers sit back and watch the outcomes, all they're going to see are the poorest people with drink problems become even poorer as they spend proportionately more of their income on alcohol.

Look at Spain - they have one of the lowest priced alcohol sectors in the European Union, but for the most part, they don't have a problem with drinking culture the same way we do. The difference is attitude for a large part.

I absolutely applaud the likes of RIP who help those really struggling with addiction and alcoholism - it's a heinous disease, and people like him (her? - I hate to assume) with retrospective experience helping those who are struggling are every bit as important to tackling the problem as widespread policy implementation. More funding to set up groups/clinics to treat and educate people, in addition to early education at schools are crucial to stopping the problem before we even get near dipping into our pockets to get the cash/card to buy whatever's in our basket.

[snooky]

So your own personal liberties and freedoms are being trodden on because retailers have to double the price of budget alcohol?

Right oh then....

Think 'big picture'.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

An interesting point above as to why this is in the form of a minimum price and not as a tax. It feels like a very similar situation to us consuming too much sugar too cheaply and that was dealt with via a tax.

I dont k ow, but id guess that regardless of tax, supermarkets would still sell at very low prices as loss leaders- which i think is more difficult if done this way.

[CropleyWasGod]

Think 'big picture'.

Isn't that what the Government are doing? Thinking of ways to reduce the costs, both social and economic, to society as a whole?

[snooky]

Isn't that what the Government are doing? Thinking of ways to reduce the costs, both social and economic, to society as a whole?

Think 'even bigger picture' :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

Think 'even bigger picture' :wink:

Ahhh... you mean the SG have bought that Da Vinci painting, and are going to sell it on for double the price. Invest the profit in alcohol-education programmes, and hey ho, we're sorted.

Gotcha... :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

What effect will this have, if any, on multipack lagers and so on in supermarkets? I wonder if in an unitentional way this could help the struggling pub trade by removing the huge disparity in price between a drink in a bar and drinking at home. It's not that much of a stretch to say that 3 drinks in a pub at the moment could buy you enough lager in a supermarket to get you completely out of it.

I like the idea as I'm not a fan of drinking at home and when I do it's a decent beer, wine or whisky anyway. We don't have a great relationship with alcohol in this country and trying something is better than nothing. If it doesn't work then there's always an option to try something else.

At 50p it won't affect the vast majority of drinkers much at all.

Wine, 70cl bottle would be:

11% - £3.85
12% - £4.20
13% - £4.55
14% - £5

Spirits at 40%, 70cl bottle £14.

Beer, 12x33cl, 5% £10

You don't get much drinkable stuff cheaper than those prices.

[RyeSloan]

At 50p it won't affect the vast majority of drinkers much at all.

Wine, 70cl bottle would be:

11% - £3.85
12% - £4.20
13% - £4.55
14% - £5

Spirits at 40%, 70cl bottle £14.

Beer, 12x33cl, 5% £10

You don't get much drinkable stuff cheaper than those prices.

Which is probably why it has been proposed at 50p

I'm pretty sure that once it's applied there will be a reasonably rapid demand from 'experts' for it to be raised, then raised again...

[lord bunberry]

Which is probably why it has been proposed at 50p

I'm pretty sure that once it's applied there will be a reasonably rapid demand from 'experts' for it to be raised, then raised again...
:agree: That’s what I was saying earlier. At 50p it will have very little impact, but the more you raise it, the more impact it will have. The problem is that it also has an impact on people that it’s not intended for. For me this is the beginning of a long campaign that will see alcohol become very expensive in Scotland. People can argue whether that’s right or wrong, but that’s the way I see it going.

[Pete]

Forgive my ignorance but I’ve not heard anyone mention on here where the extra revenue is going. Can’t find it elsewhere either.

I assume it will be used to fund programs that tackle addiction and poverty, one of the root causes of addiction.

I certainly hope it’s not going straight into the retailers back pocket like the carrier bag charge.The result of that is a nice wee boost in profits for places like Tesco where you now can’t get a bag for under 10p.

[JeMeSouviens]

Forgive my ignorance but I’ve not heard anyone mention where the extra revenue is going.

I assume it will be used to fund programs that tackle addiction and poverty, one of the root causes of addiction.

I certainly hope it’s not going straight into the retailers back pocket like the carrier bag charge.The result of that is a nice wee boost in profits for places like Tesco where you now can’t get a bag for under 10p.

It's not a tax. The money will go to the retailer, producer etc as now. The whole idea is consumption drops so it's up to them to get the price right to make up the difference.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's not a tax. The money will go to the retailer, producer etc as now. The whole idea is consumption drops so it's up to them to get the price right to make up the difference.

Correct, although I don't think the producer is involved at all. It's purely about the retail price.

[WeeRussell]

It's not a tax. The money will go to the retailer, producer etc as now. The whole idea is consumption drops so it's up to them to get the price right to make up the difference.

Could it argued that it would have been better as a tax then? Or does this way appease the retailers who would otherwise be taking the hit?

Genuine questions. Any details I have are what I've picked-up from reading this thread today!

[Speedy]

Forgive my ignorance but I’ve not heard anyone mention on here where the extra revenue is going. Can’t find it elsewhere either.

I assume it will be used to fund programs that tackle addiction and poverty, one of the root causes of addiction.

I certainly hope it’s not going straight into the retailers back pocket like the carrier bag charge.The result of that is a nice wee boost in profits for places like Tesco where you now can’t get a bag for under 10p.

The retailers have been quite clever with the bag income. The proceeds from bag sales generally go to charity. The savings from handing out free bags will be going in their pocket.

[JeMeSouviens]

Could it argued that it would have been better as a tax then? Or does this way appease the retailers who would otherwise be taking the hit?

Genuine questions. Any details I have are what I've picked-up from reading this thread today!

Yes, but the Scottish government doesn't have the power to introduce one (or vary existing excise duties).

[lord bunberry]

Correct, although I don't think the producer is involved at all. It's purely about the retail price.
I would imagine that the government will be hoping that it will make the strong cheap ciders and lagers unviable for retailers. Surely no one would buy that crap if it was the same price as better quality alcohol. I once had a taste of someone’s Frosty Jack and it was absolutely disgusting.

[WeeRussell]

Yes, but the Scottish government doesn't have the power to introduce one (or vary existing excise duties).

I see.

If only there was a way for them to have that power :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

Correct, although I don't think the producer is involved at all. It's purely about the retail price.

Yeah, fair point. But I imagine if the producers see the retailers' margin increasing they might respond accordingly.

[CropleyWasGod]

Could it argued that it would have been better as a tax then? Or does this way appease the retailers who would otherwise be taking the hit?

Genuine questions. Any details I have are what I've picked-up from reading this thread today!

If it was dealt with through tax (which, as JMS says, couldn't be done by the SG), it would have to be applied across the board to all drinks in all sectors of society. In other words, everyone would have to pay it... whereas the plan is to target those sectors where drink is a critical problem, and where it brings social costs. Hence the emphasis on cut-price deals, which (for example) kids will try and take advantage of.

[Speedy]

Yeah, fair point. But I imagine if the producers see the retailers' margin increasing they might respond accordingly.

They'll have to increase their prices to cover loss of volume.

The bits that will be interesting are the reaction from premium brands and the impact on pubs (should help them unless they are currently buying from supermarkets).

[Pete]

The retailers have been quite clever with the bag income. The proceeds from bag sales generally go to charity. The savings from handing out free bags will be going in their pocket.

Very clever and I remember there being a lot of fanfare about the money from the 5p bags going to charity. However, the sales from the bags for life went straight into their pockets an Asda priced them at 6p...what are you going to choose?

As for the alcohol, I’m a little pissed off that the cheap drinks I enjoy will go up in price dramatically. I like a cider and there are permanently good deals on middle quality stuff. A twelve pack of Carling will now jump from £7 to £12 and 18 Magners will now jump from £11 to £18.
There are also some really good spirits I like in Aldi around the £10 mark which will jump to £14. Great for mixing but surprisingly nice on their own. A minor inconvenience for me but an inconvenience nonetheless.

Taking a step back, the nature and size of this debate tells us a lot about ourselves. People are passionately discussing how much of an intoxicating drug some of our drinks contain. Is it really that important? As a society, what’s missing and what is it we’re looking for or trying to escape from?

[CropleyWasGod]

Very clever and I remember there being a lot of fanfare about the money from the 5p bags going to charity. However, the sales from the bags for life went straight into their pockets an Asda priced them at 6p...what are you going to choose?

As for the alcohol, I’m a little pissed off that the cheap drinks I enjoy will go up in price dramatically. I like a cider and there are permanently good deals on middle quality stuff. A twelve pack of Carling will now jump from £7 to £12 and 18 Magners will now jump from £11 to £18.
There are also some really good spirits I like in Aldi around the £10 mark which will jump to £14. Great for mixing but surprisingly nice on their own. A minor inconvenience for me but an inconvenience nonetheless.

Taking a step back, the nature and size of this debate tells us a lot about ourselves. People are passionately discussing how much of an intoxicating drug some of our drinks contain. Is it really that important? As a society, what’s missing and what is it we’re looking for or trying to escape from?

Yep, that's a great point. For whatever reasons, so many people need an escape from the "reality" of life. Drink, drugs, the X-Box, hobbies, "religion is the opium of the masses", reality TV.... we could go well off-topic on this one.

[Pete]

we could go well off-topic on this one.

Indeed. Sorry 😁

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Yep, that's a great point. For whatever reasons, so many people need an escape from the "reality" of life. Drink, drugs, the X-Box, hobbies, "religion is the opium of the masses", reality TV.... we could go well off-topic on this one.

Once heard an expert on tge subject talking about this.. and he said that it is an evolutionary thing - something to do with eating fermenting fruit. Apparently some animals, including elephants also do it.

[WeeRussell]

If it was dealt with through tax (which, as JMS says, couldn't be done by the SG), it would have to be applied across the board to all drinks in all sectors of society. In other words, everyone would have to pay it... whereas the plan is to target those sectors where drink is a critical problem, and where it brings social costs. Hence the emphasis on cut-price deals, which (for example) kids will try and take advantage of.

Ah right, makes sense. Thanks.

[Steve-O]

It'll impact bottles of spirits and multipack cans of lager/cider as well.

Looking at £13/£14 minimum for a 70cl of spirits and £10 for 12 cans.

That would still be cheaper than it is here in NZ, and there are still many issues with binge drinking culture here too.

[Steve-O]

No offence but that's just stating the obvious. Its which section of society that will be most affected that counts and that too is stating the obvious however I'll put it another way and say it won't be the well-off who will be.

But, generally speaking, it isn't the well-off who are the problem drinkers.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

I read a bit online from a recovered alcoholic and he said that such was his addiction, he would have cut back on basics such as food, rent and heating to find the extra money. I am not so sure that this measure would help those already in a bad place.

[Hibrandenburg]

I read a bit online from a recovered alcoholic and he said that such was his addiction, he would have cut back on basics such as food, rent and heating to find the extra money. I am not so sure that this measure would help those already in a bad place.

Hard as it may sound but I think the initiative is to try and stop people developing a habit in the first place. Folks who're already hooked will probably pay whatever is asked anyway.

[WeeRussell]

Hard as it may sound but I think the initiative is to try and stop people developing a habit in the first place. Folks who're already hooked will probably pay whatever is asked anyway.

Definitely - no way it would be used to try and simply stop alcoholics from drinking. Alcohol dependent doesn't mean depending on how much it costs.

[heretoday]

Definitely - no way it would be used to try and simply stop alcoholics from drinking. Alcohol dependent doesn't mean depending on how much it costs.

It won't affect prices in the pubs, which are prohibitively high anyway IMO. But if it takes bottles of Frosty Jacks off the shelves that'll be a boon. There's only one reason those bottles are there. No one drinks white cider out of choice FFS.

[snooky]

Question:

Pre min pricing.

Plonk = £4, Decent wine = £7 (say)


Post min pricing.

Plonk = £7, Decent wine = £7

..... or will it be

Plonk = £7, decent wine = £10

If it's the latter, there lies my biggest gripe.

[CropleyWasGod]

Question:

Pre min pricing.

Plonk = £4, Decent wine = £7 (say)


Post min pricing.

Plonk = £7, Decent wine = £7

..... or will it be

Plonk = £7, decent wine = £10

If it's the latter, there lies my biggest gripe.

The latter will only happen if the retailer decides to let it happen. That's a commercial decision on their part, which will have to be taken in light of their competitors' actions.

[JeMeSouviens]

Question:

Pre min pricing.

Plonk = £4, Decent wine = £7 (say)


Post min pricing.

Plonk = £7, Decent wine = £7

..... or will it be

Plonk = £7, decent wine = £10

If it's the latter, there lies my biggest gripe.

See my post back up the page a bit, wine has to get up to 14% before the min price is £5.

[snooky]

See my post back up the page a bit, wine has to get up to 14% before the min price is £5.

Phew!

Home & dry (no pun intended :wink:)

[Geo_1875]

My question is who decides what is a unit of alcohol and is this arbitrary and liable to change?

[CropleyWasGod]

My question is who decides what is a unit of alcohol and is this arbitrary and liable to change?

https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/alcohol-facts/alcoholic-drinks-units/what-is-an-alcohol-unit/

[JeMeSouviens]

My question is who decides what is a unit of alcohol and is this arbitrary and liable to change?

It's 10ml, no and no.

[Geo_1875]

https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/alcohol-facts/alcoholic-drinks-units/what-is-an-alcohol-unit/

Thanks. I know that 10ml of pure alcohol is a unit but this seems arbitrary and convenient. My point is more who is the arbiter and could they be "convinced" to change the standard?

Also, why doesn't it have a fancy name like other units of measurement? I'd go for a peeve.

[lapsedhibee]

Thanks. I know that 10ml of pure alcohol is a unit but this seems arbitrary and convenient. My point is more who is the arbiter and could they be "convinced" to change the standard?

Also, why doesn't it have a fancy name like other units of measurement? I'd go for a peeve.

Slug would have been appropriate if it wasn't already in use.

[Tornadoes70]

Slug would have been appropriate if it wasn't already in use.

Think more like 'Sip' now the dictatorship snp has got its hands on pricing. A tory and snp moratorium on the pricing of alcohol in Scotland :confused:.

The sooner libertarians like Labour and the Liberal Democrats get back in the better than these know it all right wing dictators as far as I'm concerned.

GGTTH

[snooky]

Think more like 'Sip' now the dictatorship snp has got its hands on pricing. A tory and snp moratorium on the pricing of alcohol in Scotland :confused:.

The sooner libertarians like Labour and the Liberal Democrats get back in the better than these know it all right wing dictators as far as I'm concerned.

GGTTH

:agree: I remember those two parties. :coffee:

[lord bunberry]

Think more like 'Sip' now the dictatorship snp has got its hands on pricing. A tory and snp moratorium on the pricing of alcohol in Scotland :confused:.

The sooner libertarians like Labour and the Liberal Democrats get back in the better than these know it all right wing dictators as far as I'm concerned.

GGTTH
The Labour Party supports minimum pricing on alcohol, as far as I’m aware so do the Lib Dem’s.

[Tornadoes70]

The Labour Party supports minimum pricing on alcohol, as far as I’m aware so do the Lib Dem’s.

It wasn't them that chased it through the court system though was it? it was the dictatorial snp. The sooner Labour and the Lib Dems get back in the better it will be as far as I'm concerned.

[danhibees1875]

It wasn't them that chased it through the court system though was it? it was the dictatorial snp. The sooner Labour and the Lib Dems get back in the better it will be as far as I'm concerned.

Is it dictatorship when there is cross party agreement?

[Tornadoes70]

Is it dictatorship when there is cross party agreement?

You don't really understand politics do you?

It wasn't Labour or the Lib Dems who pursued it to the Supreme Court was it?

It was only the snp who did.

[lord bunberry]

You don't really understand politics do you?

It wasn't Labour or the Lib Dems who pursued it to the Supreme Court was it?

It was only the snp who did.
It was the Scottish Malt Whisky society that pursued it through the courts.

[Tornadoes70]

It was the Scottish Malt Whisky society that pursued it through the courts.

Certainly they put up a case against the Snp dictatorial policy. Indeed.

[danhibees1875]

You don't really understand politics do you?

It wasn't Labour or the Lib Dems who pursued it to the Supreme Court was it?

It was only the snp who did.

I clearly don't, no.

Something was voted on with no MSP from any of the parties intentionally voting against it (1 did by accident) - so the government ensured that the will of the cross party consensus wasn't overruled by business (whisky association) saying so. That's dictatorship?

[Tornadoes70]

I clearly don't, no.

Something was voted on with no MSP from any of the parties intentionally voting against it (1 did by accident) - so the government ensured that the will of the cross party consensus wasn't overruled by business (whisky association) saying so. That's dictatorship?

I don't come on here to bully or harass anyone but I get you don't really understand the underlying reality of politics or the reality of lawmakers. The sooner Labour and the Liberal Democrats get back in which they will the better it will be for all of us. They are the real parties of compassion and understand the troubles ordinary folk have. They always will be. The Snp and the tories will always be the parties of dictatorship and keeping the working folk and underclass down no matter what some will pretend.

GGTTH

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't come on here to bully or harass anyone but I get you don't really understand the underlying reality of politics or the reality of lawmakers. The sooner Labour and the Liberal Democrats get back in which they will the better it will be for all of us. They are the real parties of compassion and understand the troubles ordinary folk have. They always will be. The Snp and the tories will always be the parties of dictatorship and keeping the working folk and underclass down no matter what some will pretend.

GGTTHWill either of those parties reverse the policy?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Geo_1875]

I don't come on here to bully or harass anyone but I get you don't really understand the underlying reality of politics or the reality of lawmakers. The sooner Labour and the Liberal Democrats get back in which they will the better it will be for all of us. They are the real parties of compassion and understand the troubles ordinary folk have. They always will be. The Snp and the tories will always be the parties of dictatorship and keeping the working folk and underclass down no matter what some will pretend.

GGTTH

Labour certainly cared about the poor working-class people of Iraq. And the Lib-Dems compassion for the students of England and Wales knew no bounds. When minimum pricing comes in hopefully you won't be drinking so much and spouting nonsense.

[WeeRussell]

It won't affect prices in the pubs, which are prohibitively high anyway IMO. But if it takes bottles of Frosty Jacks off the shelves that'll be a boon. There's only one reason those bottles are there. No one drinks white cider out of choice FFS.

I didn't say they did :confused:

I said that alcoholics are alcoholics regardless of the price of alcohol... FFS

[snooky]

http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/food/drink/victoria-beckham-wont-drink-a-bottle-of-wine-costing-less-than-10-is-she-right-11364230775751

Looks like Mrs Becks will be unaffected with the min pricing. Mind you, Stickie may have to watch her weekly grocery bill if the price of lettuce and broccoli goes up.