New charge on Alcohol

[snooky]

Good or bad?
I know there's the argument that it will cut down drinking - but will it?
Yes. The people who can handle drink will probably have a set budget for it and will just buy less.
The people who misuse alcohol will still drink the same. They'll get the extra money by cutting out other things like food or maybe resort to crime.
That's a broad generalisation I know, however I just don't feel this legislation is the correct solution to Scotland's drinking problem. Also, how will it affect the drink industry and who pockets the extra money?

[Geo_1875]

Good or bad?
I know there's the argument that it will cut down drinking - but will it?
Yes. The people who can handle drink will probably have a set budget for it and will just buy less.
The people who misuse alcohol will still drink the same. They'll get the extra money by cutting out other things like food or maybe resort to crime.
That's a broad generalisation I know, however I just don't feel this legislation is the correct solution to Scotland's drinking problem. Also, how will it affect the drink industry and who pockets the extra money?

The idea is that there won't be extra money (which goes to the producer/retailer) as it's been modelled that the formerly cheap, harmful alcohol falls out of favour.

[Mr White]

Good or bad?
I know there's the argument that it will cut down drinking - but will it?
Yes. The people who can handle drink will probably have a set budget for it and will just buy less.
The people who misuse alcohol will still drink the same. They'll get the extra money by cutting out other things like food or maybe resort to crime.
That's a broad generalisation I know, however I just don't feel this legislation is the correct solution to Scotland's drinking problem. Also, how will it affect the drink industry and who pockets the extra money?

It's not intended or designed to solve Scotland's drinking problem on it's own. I know several GPs who feel it will be useful as one policy in the longer term aim of changing people's attitudes to and relationship with alcohol. I really hope that it helps with that.

[CropleyWasGod]

Good or bad?
I know there's the argument that it will cut down drinking - but will it?
Yes. The people who can handle drink will probably have a set budget for it and will just buy less.
The people who misuse alcohol will still drink the same. They'll get the extra money by cutting out other things like food or maybe resort to crime.
That's a broad generalisation I know, however I just don't feel this legislation is the correct solution to Scotland's drinking problem. Also, how will it affect the drink industry and who pockets the extra money?The "extra money" goes to the retailer.

The intention, though, is that the increase in price will reduce consumption, therefore there may be a reduction in income for the retailer.

The income thing is, for me, irrelevant. It's all about reducing consumption, improving health and reducing the pressure on the NHS and police.

We have a 5 or 6 year review period for the legislation. If it doesn't "work" (however you define that), it will be repealed. I'm all for giving it the chance. After all, what feasible alternatives have been proposed?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

Some people will be able to consume less.

Those with disposable income won't be affected.

However, if the cheap alcohol increases in price, won't the suppliers want to retain differentials?

If a bottle of Morrison's own whisky increases to £14 won't Grouse and Bell's increase too?

If they increase, I'd imagine single malts would also become more expensive.

:dunno:

[CropleyWasGod]

Some people will be able to consume less.

Those with disposable income won't be affected.

However, if the cheap alcohol increases in price, won't the suppliers want to retain differentials?

If a bottle of Morrison's own whisky increases to £14 won't Grouse and Bell's increase too?

If they increase, I'd imagine single malts would also become more expensive.

:dunno:Not necessarily.

I'd imagine that the larger retailers will take a view after a period of time. For them, and remember that they were largely against the legislation, it's all about profit. They'll change their prices if they see fit.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[snooky]

I supposed my main gripe is that it's the old method of stopping a few by hitting everyone when in reality, the few carry on as was.
e.g. Speed bumps. Slows down the normal drivers. The speeders still zoom over them. Similarly with this drinking law. The hard drinkers will find the extra money somewhere else which in reality makes their situation worse.
I'm all for addressing Scotland's drinking problem and see the good intention behind this legislation however, I just think it's unfair on the rest of the folk.
Sledge hammers to kill flies.

[Geo_1875]

I supposed my main gripe is that it's the old method of stopping a few by hitting everyone when in reality, the few carry on as was.
e.g. Speed bumps. Slows down the normal drivers. The speeders still zoom over them. Similarly with this drinking law. The hard drinkers will find the extra money somewhere else which in reality makes their situation worse.
I'm all for addressing Scotland's drinking problem and see the good intention behind this legislation however, I just think it's unfair on the rest of the folk.
Sledge hammers to kill flies.

It won't affect "normal" drinkers though unless they're partial to cheap cider (does not contain apples) or jakey vodka (does not contain potatoes).

[Mr White]

It won't affect "normal" drinkers though unless they're partial to cheap cider (does not contain apples) or jakey vodka (does not contain potatoes).

Some multi-packs of lager might be affected I think? 12 cans of 4% lager for 9.99 for example will increase to closer to £12?

[Geo_1875]

Some multi-packs of lager might be affected I think? 12 cans of 4% lager for 9.99 for example will increase to closer to £12?

Only if they're half-litre cans.

[Mr White]

Only if they're half-litre cans.

Aye that seems right. Minimum cost for a 12 pack of 440ml cans will increase to about £10.50 I think? Not a massive hike really.

[calumhibee1]

Speaking of alcohol..

Has anyone ever bought one of these mini kegs of lager in the supermarket? If so, the 3 that I’ve bought have all been horrendously flat, like the pints have been left out overnight. Is it like this for everyone or am I making an arse of it somewhere?

[lord bunberry]

The problem I have with this is if the minimum price is raised from its current level. I think it’s a good thing to try and stop the selling of this cheap cider that is only designed for alcoholics to get drunk or children to get started on the road to having a drink problem. I’m sceptical that the minimum price won’t be raised in the future, and hitting moderate drinkers in the pocket as well.

[Geo_1875]

The problem I have with this is if the minimum price is raised from its current level. I think it’s a good thing to try and stop the selling of this cheap cider that is only designed for alcoholics to get drunk or children to get started on the road to having a drink problem. I’m sceptical that the minimum price won’t be raised in the future, and hitting moderate drinkers in the pocket as well.

They're reviewing this policy after 6-7 years. I think inflation will easily have overtaken any potential rise.

[danhibees1875]

Some people will be able to consume less.

Those with disposable income won't be affected.

However, if the cheap alcohol increases in price, won't the suppliers want to retain differentials?

If a bottle of Morrison's own whisky increases to £14 won't Grouse and Bell's increase too?

If they increase, I'd imagine single malts would also become more expensive.

:dunno:

That's what I thought would happen over time. Be interesting to see if said brands hold off until they've cleaned up the market share (no one will buy Morrison's own when Grouse is the same price) which would presumably force all the own brands out of the market. Then they can start adding a few £££ on to the price tag.

I agree with the poster above too, this is just the initial phase - I've no doubt it will go up.

I think it's a reasonable starting point by the government, and will be a success if it is a part of a wider effort to change attitudes - not just this alone. Scotland is the first country to introduce it, but other places have (parts of Canada for instance) and I believe it's had generally positive effects.

[CropleyWasGod]

The problem I have with this is if the minimum price is raised from its current level. I think it’s a good thing to try and stop the selling of this cheap cider that is only designed for alcoholics to get drunk or children to get started on the road to having a drink problem. I’m sceptical that the minimum price won’t be raised in the future, and hitting moderate drinkers in the pocket as well.Other than inflation, the only reason the price will increase is if the policy isn't working at 50p. If it's not working at that level, it probably.needs an overall review anyway.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[bod]

I used to buy 3 bottles of wine every week when they were 3 for a tenner.Now that they’ve stopped that I’m down to 1 bottle a week ,now although I disagreed with the Scottish Government scrapping those kind of offers my health must be better for it

[JeMeSouviens]

Sheffield Uni have been undertaking the research the Scot Gov are basing the policy on. Their analysis is here:

https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.565373!/file/Scotland_report_2016.pdf

According to their modelling ...


A 50p MUP is estimated to lead to 2,036 fewer deaths and 38,859 fewer hospitalisations
during the first 20 years of the policy. After 20 years, when the policy has achieved its full
effect, there would be an estimated 121 fewer deaths and 2,042 fewer hospital admissions
per year.

The proof will be in the pudding but I think it's worth trying.

[Onceinawhile]

I understand why it's come in, but for me it's frustrating. I usually have a drink once a week - on a Saturday night.

Usually I would buy a ten pack of stubbies from Tesco for £3.60 which was 10 units (one unit each). The price if I was to do that now would be £5 a 38.9% increase in cost. Whilst most people would argue that £5 isn't a lot to spend (it really isn't) I'd rather be able to keep the cash to myself.

What's actually happened of course is that they've now gotten rid of the beers I usually drink because for a £5 you can instead buy a more established, well known brand for the same price.

Of course this will probably stop me drinking once a week, but that's going to have almost no health consequences for me and make no savings for the NHS.

[johnbc70]

I understand why it's come in, but for me it's frustrating. I usually have a drink once a week - on a Saturday night.

Usually I would buy a ten pack of stubbies from Tesco for £3.60 which was 10 units (one unit each). The price if I was to do that now would be £5 a 38.9% increase in cost. Whilst most people would argue that £5 isn't a lot to spend (it really isn't) I'd rather be able to keep the cash to myself.

What's actually happened of course is that they've now gotten rid of the beers I usually drink because for a £5 you can instead buy a more established, well known brand for the same price.

Of course this will probably stop me drinking once a week, but that's going to have almost no health consequences for me and make no savings for the NHS.

So the Sainsburys own brand beer I used to buy is now no longer available, assume for same reasons as above. It was 10 250ml bottles for £3.50 but would now cost £5. It was pretty low alcohol content but must have had a unit per bottle.

So I now actually have to buy more expensive and stronger beer if I fancy a drink.

[beensaidbefore]

Can't see this stopping the problem drinkers one bit. Nothing to stop them chipping in to replace their cheap cider with strong spirits.

I also notice there has been no increase in buckfast. That's certainly a jakey drink in my book.

As an snp voter I am growing increasingly disillusioned by recent attempts to treat us all like morons when in fact it is only a small percentage who need some ki d of interventions. Same with bad parenting that requires a named person,call out those who need it and leave the rest of us alone.

[snooky]

Can't see this stopping the problem drinkers one bit. Nothing to stop them chipping in to replace their cheap cider with strong spirits.

I also notice there has been no increase in buckfast. That's certainly a jakey drink in my book.

As an snp voter I am growing increasingly disillusioned by recent attempts to treat us all like morons when in fact it is only a small percentage who need some ki d of interventions. Same with bad parenting that requires a named person,call out those who need it and leave the rest of us alone.

:agree: 100%.
I'm getting fed up taking a whipping for something I haven't done.
Stuff all those little nerds with all their modelling, analysis and all the theoretical crap that goes with it.
Rant over.

[CropleyWasGod]

:agree: 100%.
I'm getting fed up taking a whipping for something I haven't done.
Stuff all those little nerds with all their modelling, analysis and all the theoretical crap that goes with it.
Rant over. Not sure how you are "taking a whipping" here.

As for "little nerds", experts in alcohol research (including a late friend of mine, who was one of the foremost in that field in the UK) have been saying for over 20 years that the only way to control alcohol consumption is through price. Thus far, nobody has come up with a credible alternative.

If the pressure on the NHS is relieved, giving us all a greater return for our taxes, (and that's leaving aside the whole argument about being a caring society), is that also "taking a whipping"?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Can't see this stopping the problem drinkers one bit. Nothing to stop them chipping in to replace their cheap cider with strong spirits.

I also notice there has been no increase in buckfast. That's certainly a jakey drink in my book.

As an snp voter I am growing increasingly disillusioned by recent attempts to treat us all like morons when in fact it is only a small percentage who need some ki d of interventions. Same with bad parenting that requires a named person,call out those who need it and leave the rest of us alone.Every party voted for it in the Parliament, except for the Labour party.

IIRC, though, it's Labour party policy in England.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Colr]

Good or bad?
I know there's the argument that it will cut down drinking - but will it?
Yes. The people who can handle drink will probably have a set budget for it and will just buy less.
The people who misuse alcohol will still drink the same. They'll get the extra money by cutting out other things like food or maybe resort to crime.
That's a broad generalisation I know, however I just don't feel this legislation is the correct solution to Scotland's drinking problem. Also, how will it affect the drink industry and who pockets the extra money?

Has more expensive alcohol increased in price as well?

[Beefster]

Not sure how you are "taking a whipping" here.

As for "little nerds", experts in alcohol research (including a late friend of mine, who was one of the foremost in that field in the UK) have been saying for over 20 years that the only way to control alcohol consumption is through price. Thus far, nobody has come up with a credible alternative.

If the pressure on the NHS is relieved, giving us all a greater return for our taxes, (and that's leaving aside the whole argument about being a caring society), is that also "taking a whipping"?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

You can boil every social ill down to that solution so it’s not particularly revolutionary. Sugar, fast food, alcohol, tobacco, Ginsters Cornish pasties etc - just price them out of reach of the folk who can’t control their consumption.

Makes no odds to me as I rarely drink outside a pub but all this policy is really doing is enforcing ‘desired’ behaviours on folk who can’t afford to keep living how they want to. Either that or they keep drinking but something else is cut.

[snooky]

Not sure how you are "taking a whipping" here.

As for "little nerds", experts in alcohol research (including a late friend of mine, who was one of the foremost in that field in the UK) have been saying for over 20 years that the only way to control alcohol consumption is through price. Thus far, nobody has come up with a credible alternative.

If the pressure on the NHS is relieved, giving us all a greater return for our taxes, (and that's leaving aside the whole argument about being a caring society), is that also "taking a whipping"?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

I did say it was a rant, BTW. :greengrin

FWIW, you can control anything by pricing. Let's put road tax up to £5000 a year and just let the rich folk have the roads to themselves. Do the same with drink. £1000 for a bottle of whisky let the chosen few enjoy it. Would that stop the vulnerable drinkers drinking? Instead they'd turn to meths or the like. As I said I'm all for initatives for addressing Scotland's drinking culture. I just think there must be better ways to do it than this scattergun approach. Someone said Buckfast is not affected by this charge. That's a big hole in the hull of HMS Temperance for starters.

[CropleyWasGod]

I did say it was a rant, BTW. :greengrin

FWIW, you can control anything by pricing. Let's put road tax up to £5000 a year and just let the rich folk have the roads to themselves. Do the same with drink. £1000 for a bottle of whisky let the chosen few enjoy it. Would that stop the vulnerable drinkers drinking? Instead they'd go to meths or the like. As I said I'm all for initatives for addressing Scotland's drinking culture. I just think there must be better ways to do it than this scattergun approach. Someone said Buckfast is not affected by this charge. That's a big hole in the hull of HMS Temperance for starters.If there are "better ways", what are they? We've had decades to come up with anything.

Sometimes, when all else fails, Governments have to set social policy. The least we can do is review the situation after 5 years, as the.legislation provides.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[johnbc70]

Alcohol is one example, but the Scottish government show a distinct lack of trust in the people of Scotland. I am sure they have also changed the law so you can't get any deals like buy one get one free on bottles of wine etc. Punish the many because of the few. I have an app on my phone for my local pub which is a large chain, got a message saying I could get a free pint. Showed the voucher to the barman who then said it was not valid in Scotland due to the laws here.

The named person is another example as pointed out above. Scotland is also apparently going to be tobacco free by 2034, so if you smoke I hope your making plans to emigrate. (Although never stopped one SNP MSP accepting hospitality from one of the largest tobacco companies)

[Hiber-nation]

:agree: 100%.
I'm getting fed up taking a whipping for something I haven't done.
Stuff all those little nerds with all their modelling, analysis and all the theoretical crap that goes with it.
Rant over.

My mate was one of the researchers in the Scottish Government's team that brought this forward. Nerd? Well that's debatable :wink:

[stoneyburn hibs]

I've had a wee look at how it will impact my wallet and it's nothing. I drink only on a Friday and Saturday, admittedly above the recommended. I'll average a 70cl bottle of rum and a case of beer with maybe a few pints if we have a home game.

Ironically I just ordered a delivery from Sainsbury's and Havana club has been reduced to £16 , happy days 😀

[Glory Lurker]

Okay then, small government proponents, what should be done instead?

[Speedy]

I used to buy 3 bottles of wine every week when they were 3 for a tenner.Now that they’ve stopped that I’m down to 1 bottle a week ,now although I disagreed with the Scottish Government scrapping those kind of offers my health must be better for it

Thinking about that, it's strange that a 70cl bottle of vodka is cheaper than two 35cls. Or a 24 pack of tennents is (was) cheaper than 6 four packs.

[RyeSloan]

Okay then, small government proponents, what should be done instead?

First of all you need to be honest about the trends.

The trend for alcohol use and abuse has been downwards for some time. The notion that this is an ever increasing problem is a false one.

The you need to look at the age groups...alcohol abuse is much more common in older groups that younger ones. There appears to have been a real generational shift in that younger generations are clearly more informed than older ones re alcohol and are not wedded to it as older ones are.

Then you need to look at where the problem lies. It’s very very clear in the map within the National Statistics link below that ‘Scotlands’ problem is really a Glasgow problem. In fact in large swathes of the country the hospitalisation rate is less than half that of Glasgow.

Finally you need to look at the source of the problem. Deprivation levels are directly linked to alcohol health issues. 8 times as more likely in the most deprived areas compared to the least.

Once you have done that you should target resources and policies on those areas and people. A blanket minimum price may well do that but it hardly smacks of a focussed approach.

Trends (old but relevant and I don’t have time to find anything more recent tonight! [emoji23]) http://www.wsta.co.uk/publications-useful-documents/88-trends-in-alcohol-scotland/file

Latest hospital stats: http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Drugs-and-Alcohol-Misuse/Publications/2017-11-21/2017-11-21-ARHS-Report.pdf

[Steve-O]

Alcohol is one example, but the Scottish government show a distinct lack of trust in the people of Scotland. I am sure they have also changed the law so you can't get any deals like buy one get one free on bottles of wine etc. Punish the many because of the few. I have an app on my phone for my local pub which is a large chain, got a message saying I could get a free pint. Showed the voucher to the barman who then said it was not valid in Scotland due to the laws here.

The named person is another example as pointed out above. Scotland is also apparently going to be tobacco free by 2034, so if you smoke I hope your making plans to emigrate. (Although never stopped one SNP MSP accepting hospitality from one of the largest tobacco companies)

"Tobacco free" is probably not quite as it seems. In New Zealand they are aiming to be "smoke free" by 2025, but in fact the definition of 'smoke free' is that only 5 or 10% (can't recall which) of the population still smoke. It doesn't mean that cigarettes won't be available, but the culture will have changed to a point where only a very small number of people will still partake - that and cigarettes will be extremely expensive. Around 15 GBP for a pack of 20 here as I understand it now. Not sure how that compares with the UK.

To be fair, given the amount of bevvying, trouble and health related problems in Scotland, it is hard to argue why the government should trust the population to manage it themselves? Yes of course not everyone goes mental on the drink, but compared to a lot of places around the world, it's clear Scotland has a bit of an affinity for drinking to excess.

There's no minimum price here and you can still get some cheap booze, but compared to Scotland it'd be considered expensive. Some of the stuff I'm seeing on this thread in terms of pricing is crazy - 10 beers for 3.50?! That is pretty ludicrous when you think about it. Maybe I've just been away and paying expensive prices for too long!

[Mr Grieves]

First of all you need to be honest about the trends.

The trend for alcohol use and abuse has been downwards for some time. The notion that this is an ever increasing problem is a false one.

The you need to look at the age groups...alcohol abuse is much more common in older groups that younger ones. There appears to have been a real generational shift in that younger generations are clearly more informed than older ones re alcohol and are not wedded to it as older ones are.

Then you need to look at where the problem lies. It’s very very clear in the map within the National Statistics link below that ‘Scotlands’ problem is really a Glasgow problem. In fact in large swathes of the country the hospitalisation rate is less than half that of Glasgow.

Finally you need to look at the source of the problem. Deprivation levels are directly linked to alcohol health issues. 8 times as more likely in the most deprived areas compared to the least.

Once you have done that you should target resources and policies on those areas and people. A blanket minimum price may well do that but it hardly smacks of a focussed approach.

Trends (old but relevant and I don’t have time to find anything more recent tonight! [emoji23]) http://www.wsta.co.uk/publications-useful-documents/88-trends-in-alcohol-scotland/file

Latest hospital stats: http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Drugs-and-Alcohol-Misuse/Publications/2017-11-21/2017-11-21-ARHS-Report.pdf

Is it not the case that the Scottish Government brought in other measures, such as needing ID if under 25, that have had an impact on underage drinking and led to the trends you mention?

[Mr Grieves]

Alcohol is one example, but the Scottish government show a distinct lack of trust in the people of Scotland. I am sure they have also changed the law so you can't get any deals like buy one get one free on bottles of wine etc. Punish the many because of the few. I have an app on my phone for my local pub which is a large chain, got a message saying I could get a free pint. Showed the voucher to the barman who then said it was not valid in Scotland due to the laws here.

The named person is another example as pointed out above. Scotland is also apparently going to be tobacco free by 2034, so if you smoke I hope your making plans to emigrate. (Although never stopped one SNP MSP accepting hospitality from one of the largest tobacco companies)

I'd love to read more about this "tobacco free" Scotland you mention, got a link?

[johnbc70]

I'd love to read more about this "tobacco free" Scotland you mention, got a link?

http://www.healthscotland.scot/publications/review-of-creating-a-tobacco-free-generation-a-tobacco-control-strategy-for-scotland

I am sure there are plenty of other articles and resources but this seems like it covers a lot.

[Betty Boop]

A nonsense policy from the Nanny party.

[RyeSloan]

Is it not the case that the Scottish Government brought in other measures, such as needing ID if under 25, that have had an impact on underage drinking and led to the trends you mention?

Dunno but not according to the polis in 2014:

Chief constable of Police Scotland Sir Stephen House, in a report to the Scottish Borders Licensing Board, said the number of crimes of underage purchasing of alcohol has dropped since retailers have been required to demand photo ID documents that prove would-be alcohol purchasers who look under 25 are at least 18 years of age.
But it hadn’t stopped under-18s from drinking alcohol because adults buy it for them or give it to them.” he said.
“However there is a move towards ‘agent purchase’ of alcohol and much less instances of children or young persons purchasing alcohol themselves.”

[lapsedhibee]

So the Sainsburys own brand beer I used to buy is now no longer available, assume for same reasons as above. It was 10 250ml bottles for £3.50 but would now cost £5. It was pretty low alcohol content but must have had a unit per bottle.

So I now actually have to buy more expensive and stronger beer if I fancy a drink.

Same. Sainsbury's own brand lager was £1.10 for 4 cans on Monday, £1.85 on Tuesday and the wumman deciding whether I was 25 or more said it was probably going to be discontinued altogether. Watery pish admittedly (2%) but highly refreshing. I am likely to end up drinking some high-strength alternative like Skol. The government is pushing me into higher consumption of alcohol.

[Sylar]

A nonsense policy from the Nanny party.

I agree and disagree with you.

On it's own, it's a blunt instrument that's going to displace problems rather than resolve them. As a starting point, with supplementary policies and initiatives, it could be incredibly successful.

Pricing to change behaviour has been demonstrated to be effective (carrier bags, coffee discounts for own-use vessels), so I fully understand them trying it. I can't say I've noticed any change in the price of the beer I typically drink at weekends (which aren't cheap, supermarket own-brand varieties), or in the odd bottle of wine that I buy when we've got friends etc coming around. But if it makes it financially unsustainable for people to buy bottles of ridiculously high alcohol garbage for pittence, it's a decent first step.

We were involved in doing some analysis for the Scottish Government on the economic impacts of changing alcohol consumption that might be an interesting read for those who are so inclined:

https://www.sbs.strath.ac.uk/economics/fraser/20180411/The-economic-impact-of-changes-in-alcohol-consumption-in-the-UK.pdf

[CropleyWasGod]

I agree and disagree with you.

On it's own, it's a blunt instrument that's going to displace problems rather than resolve them. As a starting point, with supplementary policies and initiatives, it could be incredibly successful.

Pricing to change behaviour has been demonstrated to be effective (carrier bags, coffee discounts for own-use vessels), so I fully understand them trying it. I can't say I've noticed any change in the price of the beer I typically drink at weekends (which aren't cheap, supermarket own-brand varieties), or in the odd bottle of wine that I buy when we've got friends etc coming around. But if it makes it financially unsustainable for people to buy bottles of ridiculously high alcohol garbage for pittence, it's a decent first step.

We were involved in doing some analysis for the Scottish Government on the economic impacts of changing alcohol consumption that might be an interesting read for those who are so inclined:

https://www.sbs.strath.ac.uk/economics/fraser/20180411/The-economic-impact-of-changes-in-alcohol-consumption-in-the-UK.pdfIf you're a weekend drinker, you won't notice any changes in prices until this weekend. It only came into effect on Tuesday.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Sylar]

If you're a weekend drinker, you won't notice any changes in prices until this weekend. It only came into effect on Tuesday.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

I did do our weekly shop last night and didn't notice any difference - I normally drink a couple of bottles of Leffe, and it was the same price when I picked them up yesterday as it was last week.

[JeMeSouviens]

Alcohol is one example, but the Scottish government show a distinct lack of trust in the people of Scotland. I am sure they have also changed the law so you can't get any deals like buy one get one free on bottles of wine etc. Punish the many because of the few. I have an app on my phone for my local pub which is a large chain, got a message saying I could get a free pint. Showed the voucher to the barman who then said it was not valid in Scotland due to the laws here.

The named person is another example as pointed out above. Scotland is also apparently going to be tobacco free by 2034, so if you smoke I hope your making plans to emigrate. (Although never stopped one SNP MSP accepting hospitality from one of the largest tobacco companies)

I get and have some sympathy with the libertarian argument, but otoh, it would seem that from the evidence over many decades, the people of Scotland have shown they can't be trusted with drink. We really need an attitude shift and this might be a useful step in that direction. If it doesn't work it can be dropped.

I had similar sympathy with the argument against the smoking ban, but with hindsight I think that worked out really well.

Named person has absolutely f all to do with not trusting anyone, btw. All it does is give 1 out of potentially several people involved with a child's welfare the responsibility to be the primary point of contact. It's an organisational change so that the extreme cases don't fall through the cracks because everybody thought someone else was in the better position.

[JeMeSouviens]

A nonsense policy from the Nanny party.

A ridiculously knee jerk response from a blinkered view.

[CropleyWasGod]

I did do our weekly shop last night and didn't notice any difference - I normally drink a couple of bottles of Leffe, and it was the same price when I picked them up yesterday as it was last week.Would Leffe be caught as part of the measures, though?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Sylar]

Would Leffe be caught as part of the measures, though?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

No, which I guess is my point. The type of beer I typically drink is already priced above the MUP.

I understand that's not the case for everyone, but for folk like me that only drink very occasionally, and will spend a bit more on what they're drinking, they're unlikely to see a marked difference.

So this notion that it "hammers everyone" just isn't quite correct.

[CropleyWasGod]

No, which I guess is my point. The type of beer I typically drink is already priced above the MUP.

I understand that's not the case for everyone, but for folk like me that only drink very occasionally, and will spend a bit more on what they're drinking, they're unlikely to see a marked difference.

So this notion that it "hammers everyone" just isn't quite correct.It's not correct at all.... which is my point :)

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Mr Grieves]

http://www.healthscotland.scot/publications/review-of-creating-a-tobacco-free-generation-a-tobacco-control-strategy-for-scotland

I am sure there are plenty of other articles and resources but this seems like it covers a lot.

Cheers. So they're attempting to reduce smokers to <5% of the population by 2034 - sounds good to me

[Beefster]

I get and have some sympathy with the libertarian argument, but otoh, it would seem that from the evidence over many decades, the people of Scotland have shown they can't be trusted with drink. We really need an attitude shift and this might be a useful step in that direction. If it doesn't work it can be dropped.

I had similar sympathy with the argument against the smoking ban, but with hindsight I think that worked out really well.

Named person has absolutely f all to do with not trusting anyone, btw. All it does is give 1 out of potentially several people involved with a child's welfare the responsibility to be the primary point of contact. It's an organisational change so that the extreme cases don't fall through the cracks because everybody thought someone else was in the better position.

I agree that the smoking ban has been an unarguable success. It's not the comparable with the alcohol pricing changes though. It's more akin to just taxing tobacco prohibitively (which is also done). I wouldn't be surprised for some more restrictions to be put on the sale of alcohol to legal drinkers at some point in the future.

BTW, slightly off-topic, but did 'named person' ever get implemented? I have a 10 year old and have never heard anything concerning him. If it's implemented, how do I go about finding out who the government has decided should be responsible for him (I could do with a babysitter!).

[Onceinawhile]

No, which I guess is my point. The type of beer I typically drink is already priced above the MUP.

I understand that's not the case for everyone, but for folk like me that only drink very occasionally, and will spend a bit more on what they're drinking, they're unlikely to see a marked difference.

So this notion that it "hammers everyone" just isn't quite correct.

Leffe Blonde or Brown? I'm surprised it hasn't gone up tbh, given the 6.6% nature of it, but it's obviously quite highly priced anyway.

[One Day Soon]

I get and have some sympathy with the libertarian argument, but otoh, it would seem that from the evidence over many decades, the people of Scotland have shown they can't be trusted with drink. We really need an attitude shift and this might be a useful step in that direction. If it doesn't work it can be dropped.

I had similar sympathy with the argument against the smoking ban, but with hindsight I think that worked out really well.

Named person has absolutely f all to do with not trusting anyone, btw. All it does is give 1 out of potentially several people involved with a child's welfare the responsibility to be the primary point of contact. It's an organisational change so that the extreme cases don't fall through the cracks because everybody thought someone else was in the better position.


I just see contradictions everywhere - or maybe I only imagine I do.

I thought the smoking ban was an excellent idea - even though it is nanny state, but I'm not at all sure about the minimum pricing - particularly as it is nanny state. Confusing.

Named person: as with all legislation part of the question is not simply what it is intended for and starts out as, but what it ends up being used for and who by. But that's a whole other debate.

In this context you think the people of Scotland can't be trusted with drink. In another context you think they can be trusted with...everything. Which seems contradictory. I'm not trying to be snide btw.

Bottom line, we need to dramatically change our lifestyles and health. It is ironic that we are surrounded by and grow some of the healthiest food in the world and we are crap at eating it. Fish in abundance, lots of oats and a huge berry industry. So we eat chips. I love chips. Confusing.

What I do think is ridiculous is that it has taken seven years to get to this on minimum pricing - where it's right or wrong. Pity there couldn't have been a pilot area in the meantime to test it while the lawyers were making all their money.

[snooky]

I just see contradictions everywhere - or maybe I only imagine I do.

I thought the smoking ban was an excellent idea - even though it is nanny state, but I'm not at all sure about the minimum pricing - particularly as it is nanny state. Confusing.

Named person: as with all legislation part of the question is not simply what it is intended for and starts out as, but what it ends up being used for and who by. But that's a whole other debate.

In this context you think the people of Scotland can't be trusted with drink. In another context you think they can be trusted with...everything. Which seems contradictory. I'm not trying to be snide btw.

Bottom line, we need to dramatically change our lifestyles and health. It is ironic that we are surrounded by and grow some of the healthiest food in the world and we are crap at eating it. Fish in abundance, lots of oats and a huge berry industry. So we eat chips. I love chips. Confusing.

What I do think is ridiculous is that it has taken seven years to get to this on minimum pricing - where it's right or wrong. Pity there couldn't have been a pilot area in the meantime to test it while the lawyers were making all their money.

:eek: :worms:

[JeMeSouviens]

I just see contradictions everywhere - or maybe I only imagine I do.

I thought the smoking ban was an excellent idea - even though it is nanny state, but I'm not at all sure about the minimum pricing - particularly as it is nanny state. Confusing.

Named person: as with all legislation part of the question is not simply what it is intended for and starts out as, but what it ends up being used for and who by. But that's a whole other debate.

In this context you think the people of Scotland can't be trusted with drink. In another context you think they can be trusted with...everything. Which seems contradictory. I'm not trying to be snide btw.

Bottom line, we need to dramatically change our lifestyles and health. It is ironic that we are surrounded by and grow some of the healthiest food in the world and we are crap at eating it. Fish in abundance, lots of oats and a huge berry industry. So we eat chips. I love chips. Confusing.

What I do think is ridiculous is that it has taken seven years to get to this on minimum pricing - where it's right or wrong. Pity there couldn't have been a pilot area in the meantime to test it while the lawyers were making all their money.

In the sense that I can't be trusted with chocolate biscuits*, so I take a decision not to buy them. I am the person best placed to know this and take the appropriate action to avoid the consequential fat *******isation that goes with a biscuit policy vacuum.


* or chips, come to that.

[CropleyWasGod]

In the sense that I can't be trusted with chocolate biscuits*, so I take a decision not to buy them. I am the person best placed to know this and take the appropriate action to avoid the consequential fat *******isation that goes with a biscuit policy vacuum.


* or chips, come to that.

Not everyone has that advantage, though. Successive initiatives have tried to get people to take appropriate action, and the problem remains.

Sometimes, the State has to step in and say "enough. We're going to do things differently now".

[JeMeSouviens]

Not everyone has that advantage, though. Successive initiatives have tried to get people to take appropriate action, and the problem remains.

Sometimes, the State has to step in and say "enough. We're going to do things differently now".

I was being a personification of Scotland there. Another failed rhetorical flourish, sigh. :rolleyes: Someone should hide my keyboard for my own good.

[CropleyWasGod]

I was being a personification of Scotland there. Another failed rhetorical flourish, sigh. :rolleyes: Someone should hide my keyboard for my own good.

Ah, gotcha.

You really have to lower your standards, JMS. :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

Ah, gotcha.

You really have to lower your standards, JMS. :greengrin

Maybe I should dig out that bottle of El Dorado I've been saving. :agree:

[pollution]

:agree: 100%.
I'm getting fed up taking a whipping for something I haven't done.
Stuff all those little nerds with all their modelling, analysis and all the theoretical crap that goes with it.
Rant over.

\\\\\\\\\\\i am with you on this. I used to buy the best own label cider at Lidls. 4 cans @5% for £1.99 now £4.40. No longer worth it.

90% plus of drinkers are sensible so in order to deter the 5% or so reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator.

A classic Communist diktat. The government wins also by taking in more duty and VAT on the higher price. Suck on that too!

ps This isn't a rant

[CropleyWasGod]

\\\\\\\\\\\i am with you on this. I used to buy the best own label cider at Lidls. 4 cans @5% for £1.99 now £4.40. No longer worth it.

90% plus of drinkers are sensible so in order to deter the 5% or so reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator.

A classic Communist diktat. The government wins also by taking in more duty and VAT on the higher price. Suck on that too!

ps This isn't a rant

....not if consumption goes down, which is the intention.

Bear in mind, too, that those taxes aren't devolved, so the SG neither wins or loses.

[JeMeSouviens]

....not if consumption goes down, which is the intention.

Bear in mind, too, that those taxes aren't devolved, so the SG neither wins or loses.

... and duty is charged by total volume of alcohol, not as a % of price.

[Hibbyradge]

It's virtually nothing to do with "nanny state".

It's about trying to maintain the NHS.

Why don't people call the NHS "nanny state"? :confused:

[johnbc70]

What's next, mandatory salad bars in restaurants?

[snooky]

Why don't all the politicians just form a coalition and call themselves the "Thou Shalt Not Party"?

[lord bunberry]

I came home today and my neighbour was carrying cases of beer from his car into his house. I jokingly said to him are you stocking up, and he replied that he had been down in England so he bought a load of drink while he was there. I reckon it was just an excuse that he used to his wife in order to get a massive carry out, but I’m not sure.

[Hibbyradge]

What's next, mandatory salad bars in restaurants?

A better analogy would be cheaper salads.

[Hibbyradge]

Why don't all the politicians just form a coalition and call themselves the "Thou Shalt Not Party"?

Are people being told they can't do something? I must have missed that.

[Speedy]

A better analogy would be cheaper salads.

It's already mandatory to make tap water free in restaurants (I believe anyway).

Similar logic.

[johnbc70]

A better analogy would be cheaper salads.

I believe the Scottish Government looked into making salads mandatory with meals but not sure how that worked out.

[IGRIGI]

As a man that likes a glass or ten of wine a night at 5 pound odds for a bottle of wine in the motherland thank France I'm living in the French countryside now.

[Hibbyradge]

It's already mandatory to make tap water free in restaurants (I believe anyway).

Similar logic.

Licensed premises must provide free tap water, but they can charge you for using their glass.

[One Day Soon]

In the sense that I can't be trusted with chocolate biscuits*, so I take a decision not to buy them. I am the person best placed to know this and take the appropriate action to avoid the consequential fat *******isation that goes with a biscuit policy vacuum.


* or chips, come to that.

Strange. I had referenced my own voracious appetite for chips in an earlier draft - that didn't make it - of my previous post.

[One Day Soon]

I was being a personification of Scotland there. Another failed rhetorical flourish, sigh. :rolleyes: Someone should hide my keyboard for my own good.

If you're going to do that you'll need to have your posts oscillate wildly between attacks on innumerate cybernats and Yoon nawbags.

[One Day Soon]

Maybe I should dig out that bottle of El Dorado I've been saving. :agree:

Now THAT was a soap and a half.

[snooky]

Are people being told they can't do something? I must have missed that.

Can't call folk 'names'
Can't buy cheap booze
Can't drive at 30mph on a road that has been 30mph for years & years.
Can't park free on Sundays
Can't bring up your child without having a named person
Can't drive a diesel car in town (coming soon)
Can't help someone in distress without fear of being sued or charged with something untoward
Can't smoke in public places (which is one I'm in favour of, BTW :aok:)
Can't do this, can't do that, etc, etc.
In fact, they're just a load of can'ts.

The world's screwed. :greengrin :wink:

[Glory Lurker]

First of all you need to be honest about the trends.

The trend for alcohol use and abuse has been downwards for some time. The notion that this is an ever increasing problem is a false one.

The you need to look at the age groups...alcohol abuse is much more common in older groups that younger ones. There appears to have been a real generational shift in that younger generations are clearly more informed than older ones re alcohol and are not wedded to it as older ones are.

Then you need to look at where the problem lies. It’s very very clear in the map within the National Statistics link below that ‘Scotlands’ problem is really a Glasgow problem. In fact in large swathes of the country the hospitalisation rate is less than half that of Glasgow.

Finally you need to look at the source of the problem. Deprivation levels are directly linked to alcohol health issues. 8 times as more likely in the most deprived areas compared to the least.

Once you have done that you should target resources and policies on those areas and people. A blanket minimum price may well do that but it hardly smacks of a focussed approach.

Trends (old but relevant and I don’t have time to find anything more recent tonight! [emoji23]) http://www.wsta.co.uk/publications-useful-documents/88-trends-in-alcohol-scotland/file (http://www.wsta.co.uk/publications-useful-documents/88-trends-in-alcohol-scotland/file)

Latest hospital stats: http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Drugs-and-Alcohol-Misuse/Publications/2017-11-21/2017-11-21-ARHS-Report.pdf (http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Drugs-and-Alcohol-Misuse/Publications/2017-11-21/2017-11-21-ARHS-Report.pdf)

Thanks, RS. I don’t disagree that the underlying issue needs to be specifically addressed (although IMHO Holyrood doesn’t have all the powers it needs to do as much as I would like), but I think minimum pricing is a step in the right direction. Can we call it a draw? :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

I believe the Scottish Government looked into making salads mandatory with meals but not sure how that worked out.

The kids are still getting their meals, no thanks to the Tories.

[Hibrandenburg]

I can go to my local petrol station 24hrs a day and buy beer for €1.15 and a bottle of vodka for €12.00. Still we don't have nearly the same problems related to alcohol abuse over here. The answer is in education and mindset. The whole culture around alcohol needs to be changed from the bottom up. Hiking the prices will have minimum effect on those that need help the most, those who have to drink will continue to do so, they'll just sacrifice elsewhere to cover the extra costs.

[RyeSloan]

Thanks, RS. I don’t disagree that the underlying issue needs to be specifically addressed (although IMHO Holyrood doesn’t have all the powers it needs to do as much as I would like), but I think minimum pricing is a step in the right direction. Can we call it a draw? :greengrin

I think Holyrood has plenty of powers to act in this area and I’m far from convinced the 50p level will do much at all apart from act as a regressive pseudo tax I’m happy to call it a score draw at this point [emoji23][emoji1303]

[CropleyWasGod]

I can go to my local petrol station 24hrs a day and buy beer for €1.15 and a bottle of vodka for €12.00. Still we don't have nearly the same problems related to alcohol abuse over here. The answer is in education and mindset. The whole culture around alcohol needs to be changed from the bottom up. Hiking the prices will have minimum effect on those that need help the most, those who have to drink will continue to do so, they'll just sacrifice elsewhere to cover the extra costs.It's not just about "problem drinkers" though. It's about educating kids as well. Hiking prices to a level they can't afford should make them look for alternative ways to spend their limited funds. If that changes their attitude towards alcohol, and pushes them towards healthier habits, that's a success in my book.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[PeeJay]

I can go to my local petrol station 24hrs a day and buy beer for €1.15 and a bottle of vodka for €12.00. Still we don't have nearly the same problems related to alcohol abuse over here. The answer is in education and mindset. The whole culture around alcohol needs to be changed from the bottom up. Hiking the prices will have minimum effect on those that need help the most, those who have to drink will continue to do so, they'll just sacrifice elsewhere to cover the extra costs.


The problem here may not be as acute as in Scotland, but it is one for concern - seems Germany is actually considering adopting the Scottish government's move - which has to be a first surely? :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

It's not just about "problem drinkers" though. It's about educating kids as well. Hiking prices to a level they can't afford should make them look for alternative ways to spend their limited funds. If that changes their attitude towards alcohol, and pushes them towards healthier habits, that's a success in my book.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

A large part of the initial attraction to alcohol is that it's exclusive for kids. They see it as a kind of symbol of "coming of age". Making it less readily available only increases the attraction. Most German kids are introduced to alcohol at an early age and it's not uncommon for them to have a beer or a small glass of wine with a meal at around age 14. At 16 they can also visit bars and night clubs providing they leave before midnight. This slow introduction to alcohol takes away the whole right of passage symbolism and promotes a sensible approach based on education about it within the family and society in general.

[Hibrandenburg]

The problem here may not be as acute as in Scotland, but it is one for concern - seems Germany is actually considering adopting the Scottish government's move - which has to be a first surely? :greengrin

I think Germany could learn a lot from Scotland on alcohol, but in the same kind of way that Hibs could learn from Hearts how to run a football club. :greengrin

[snooky]

I think Germany could learn a lot from Scotland on alcohol, but in the same kind of way that Hibs could learn from Hearts how to run a football club. :greengrin

We've got an auto ban in Rose Street :na na:

[Hibrandenburg]

We've got an auto ban in Rose Street :na na:

I see what you did there :tee hee:

[heretoday]

We've got an auto ban in Rose Street :na na:

Comedy gold. Well...........bronze anyway.

[CropleyWasGod]

The problem here may not be as acute as in Scotland, but it is one for concern - seems Germany is actually considering adopting the Scottish government's move - which has to be a first surely? :greengrinGiven that the SG went all the way, Courts-wise, with their proposals, it wouldn't surprise me if other countries do follow suit. Scotland has been a test case, one which has given the green light by the Courts.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[pollution]

A large part of the initial attraction to alcohol is that it's exclusive for kids. They see it as a kind of symbol of "coming of age". Making it less readily available only increases the attraction. Most German kids are introduced to alcohol at an early age and it's not uncommon for them to have a beer or a small glass of wine with a meal at around age 14. At 16 they can also visit bars and night clubs providing they leave before midnight. This slow introduction to alcohol takes away the whole right of passage symbolism and promotes a sensible approach based on education about it within the family and society in general.


An article in last week's Times said that 15 to 25 year olds are drinking a lot less than they did 10 years ago. Apologies for not having that link.

Education is the right way, not punishing the majority of responsible drinkers Commie style.

[PeeJay]

Given that the SG went all the way, Courts-wise, with their proposals, it wouldn't surprise me if other countries do follow suit. Scotland has been a test case, one which has given the green light by the Courts.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Think maybe the best way forward is to let Scotland try it out first and we'll see what he results are - then take it from there :greengrin

[Beefster]

An article in last week's Times said that 15 to 25 year olds are drinking a lot less than they did 10 years ago. Apologies for not having that link.

Education is the right way, not punishing the majority of responsible drinkers Commie style.

I agree with you about education but, make no mistake, this isn't punishing the majority. It's punishing a minority. It just so happens that that minority is the low-paid and those in poverty.

[CropleyWasGod]

Think maybe the best way forward is to let Scotland try it out first and we'll see what he results are - then take it from there :greengrinI'm all for that. It's a low-cost experiment, with potentially huge benefits.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[speedy_gonzales]

Think maybe the best way forward is to let Scotland try it out first and we'll see what he results are - then take it from there :greengrin
Something in the back of my head suggests this has been tried before, the thoughts of the Scottish public were discounted until the "British" public made their voices heard by rioting down in that the London,,,,:tee hee:

[lapsedhibee]

biscuit policy vacuum

:greengrin

[Billy Whizz]

Does the minimum pricing apply to Wholesalers?
EG Makro/Costco etc

[CropleyWasGod]

Does the minimum pricing apply to Wholesalers?
EG Makro/Costco etc

Yes, it does, unless the buyer can prove they have a licence to sell alcohol to the public.

[The_Exile]

Increasing prices on the cheapest drink only punishes one particular set of fellow human beings.

There is nothing more expensive than being poor.

[snooky]

Increasing prices on the cheapest drink only punishes one particular set of fellow human beings.

There is nothing more expensive than being poor.

Great line :aok:

[Billy Whizz]

Yes, it does, unless the buyer can prove they have a licence to sell alcohol to the public.

Ok thanks, thought it may have been a loop hole for cheaper Whisky😎

[lord bunberry]

Great line :aok:
Doesn’t really apply to this debate though.

[snooky]

Doesn’t really apply to this debate though.

Agree but it's still a good line.
Like "Life is cheap except with those who are dear"

[lord bunberry]

Agree but it's still a good line.
Like "Life is cheap except with those who are dear"
I like your line better, it has double meaning :greengrin

[OxoHibby]

As there has been very little coverage of this in England has it made any difference to pub prices?

[CropleyWasGod]

As there has been very little coverage of this in England has it made any difference to pub prices?

Pub prices should be unaffected, as they already sell at a price much higher than the minimum.

[danhibees1875]

Pub prices should be unaffected, as they already sell at a price much higher than the minimum.

Would it be right to say that they can still purchase for less than 50p a unit? That cap is only for individual customers?

[CropleyWasGod]

Would it be right to say that they can still purchase for less than 50p a unit? That cap is only for individual customers?Think so.

As far as I know, cash and carry's and the likes need to have proof that the buyer is a legitimate trader.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk