Talking drink
Thus, the late great Will Fyffe on the subject of alcohol pricing. Will is, of course, better known for trilling "I belong to Glasgow".
The star was actually born in Dundee. In his hit song, he assumed the character of a genial drunk he had met in a chance encounter outside Central Station in the Dear Green Place.
But back to the prize of booze. Will went further on the subject.
There it is. Sung from the stage of a thousand music halls and theatres.
The close potential connection between price and consumption. The ditty apparently reflects, ruefully, upon a hike in the price of whisky.
At Holyrood, Labour has conceded that there is such a connection. Jackie Baillie said as much when the topic was debated in parliament.
Broader bill
Dr Richard Simpson writes as much in The Scotsman today.
Yet Labour has decided to vote against the Scottish government's proposal for a minimum unit price on alcohol in a bill to be published today.
They may well still vote for the broader bill in principle at stage one - but would then seek to delete the minimum pricing element at stage two, in committee.
For Dr Simpson, in particular, it has apparently been a journey of discovery. The MSP started out intuitively supportive of minimum pricing, based upon his hospital experience of the damage which excessive alcohol consumption can cause.
However, Labour, including Dr Simpson, has concluded that this particular plan wouldn't work: that it wouldn't provide sufficient deterrent to those with the greatest alcohol problems, that it is too broad a brush and that it may be illegal.
There is the Buckfast Question. Labour says that a moderate minimum price, as envisaged during the consultation, wouldn't increase the price of Buckfast, the tipple of choice for certain social streams in the west of Scotland.
Ministers say Buckfast represents less than one per cent of alcohol consumption.
Counter argument
Further, Labour argues that hiking drink prices would simply add to supermarket profits without providing revenue which could be used by Scottish authorities to fund action against alcohol abuse.
Logically, it is possible to pose a counter argument to that.
Ministers would say that the objective is quite the contrary: it is to drive sales down by increasing price.
They say minimum pricing would deter "loss leader" promotions by retailers.
Labour lodges further objections. They say that ministers have failed to produce the formal advice guaranteeing the legality of their plan, despite repeated prompting.
They say further that the government has yet to specify the minimum price which would be levied. That complaint strikes me as somewhat disingenuous.
It is common practice for a bill to provide the basic legal principle - with the numerical detail provided by subsequent order.
Unit price
That allows such numerical detail to be altered relatively expeditiously with the passage of time.
In any case, if that were Labour's objection, then presumably they would have waited for Ministers to pronounce the chosen minimum unit price (they have indicated they favour 40p) before making up their minds.
It is important to stress that the Tories and Liberal Democrats are also against the bill, on pragmatic grounds.
The Tories in particular stress a further factor.
They are concerned about the impact upon the Scotch whisky trade.
The fear is that other countries might seize upon the precedent of a hike in prices here to impose punitive duties upon the export of Scotch.
Given the jobs involved here in Scotland, that is, at the very least, an important concern to bear in mind.
Issue debated
Ministers complain that Labour has jumped too soon - without providing any alternative.
They say opposition parties should have listened to the evidence which will now be submitted to Holyrood committee hearings.
They have a point - but not, I feel, an overweening one.
This issue has already been debated and discussed in Scotland for around a year. MSPs have been besieged with information and ideas.
Among that barrage has been overwhelming support from the medical profession for minimum pricing.
Doctors, including the chief medical advisers to government, say the plan would force up the price of low-cost "problem" drinks - with discernible health gains.
Further, senior police officers are supporting the use of price deterrence as a mechanism.
Stephen House, the chief constable of Strathclyde Police, says his officers see "the devastation caused by cheap, strong alcohol each and every day".
More measures
SNP ministers point out, reasonably, that they lack the power to alter alcohol duty as that is reserved to Westminster.
They insist their plans are within the law - and would work. They challenge their critics to produce other ideas.
Of course, today's bill contains more than minimum pricing.
There's action to counter deeply discounted promotions and other measures including a proposal to enable the levying of social responsibility fees upon retailers in individual areas, in individual circumstances.
Labour has now set up a commission to examine options. If that endeavour is to be seen as valid, it will have to address the arguments put forward by the doctors and the police.
Party leaders say they have by no means ruled out using price-sensitive mechanisms - such as that responsibility fee or perhaps a local sales tax which might generate productive revenue.
Ministers say they will press ahead with their plans, hoping that the evidence produced at Holyrood will sweep objections aside.
Let's give Will Fyffe the last word.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The opposition parties in Scotland have obviously never been to an A & E on Friday night, it's like a war scene.
The SNP have tried to deal with the problem, the other parties have tried to score political pints, stick their heads in the sand or suggest the SNP policy will be bad for business.
This cost the health service and industry nearly £3Nn per year, plus the untold misery in some households.
Shame on the opposition, I hope the electorate will remember!
Complain about this comment
afternoon, more proof if it was ever needed. business and profit are further up the importance league than Scottish people's health and Scottish culture and society as far as the Labour party in Scotland are concerned.
all off-sales licences should be rescinded and a system not unlike those of Canada & Finland should be implemented.
doing so would kill umpteen birds with one stone.
if these new off -sales were government owned and run
the number of "off-sales" could be significantly reduced
the control of "price" would be easier
the control of who gets served would be easier
the profit made could be invested in health care /support
the use of the existing laws could be implemented a hell of a lot more than they have ever been.
If they only sold booze there would be no need or reason for anyone under 18 to be anywhere near them !
just a thought , shoot me down if you like!
Fact - we need to do something , doing what labour ,tory's and lib-dems are doing - nothing) is not an option.
IMHO we are already too late for this generation ,don't miss the chance for the next one!
Sid
Complain about this comment
I am quite disappointed by I am not suprised that Labour have decided to vote against the policy. It was proposed by nationalists, Labour can't be seen supporting the nationalists despite the health benefits it may bring.
However I shall point out the smoking ban and how controversial it was at first, but the health of the nation came first and we're now living in a better place.
I hope the unionists parties propose measures that can help Scotland tackle the binge culture and that voting down the nationalists measures are not the last of it.
Complain about this comment
I've said it before and I'll say it again - minimum pricing wno't affect the price of those alcoholic products preferred by those who go out binge drinking! No increase in the price of buckfast! Hardly any change to the price of alcopops!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, minimum pricing won't change the drinking culture. It won't affect the price of Buckfast and the price of alcopops wont change much. All it will affect is the price that ordinary folk pay to sensibly enjoy alcohol at home. Drunken yobs don't go out on Teco Value Bitter or Larger!
Complain about this comment
It is a great pity that this debate about the pros and cons of minimum pricing will become split along existing party lines as per usual!!
#1 The A + e departments are filled with mostly pub drinkers on a weekend and the Minimum pricing, we are told, will not hit pubs.
I fully support Independence but this whole set up reminds me of Yes Minister. Something needs to be done! This is something, therefore it must be done!!
This minimum pricing is a bad idea in my opinion!
Who exactly is it aimed at?
Alcoholics will put drink before most other things so dearer drink simply means less to spend on food, not less drink!
Laws already exist to deal with underage drinkers and pub drinkers are not going to be affected!
I badly thought out policy IMNSHO!
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
It's not possible to put into words the anger that I have towards the Scots who have taken over the Labour party in Scotland and the media who have not just allowed it but actively benefit from it.
Everything is politicised, even the health of their contrymen and women. A decent media would say enough to this very clear tactic of sabotaging the governance of Scotland but what we get is Brian trying to rationalise Labour's decision.
Labour called for the bill to be debated prior to any decisions being taken - they then proceed to take a decision bedfore the debate.
Brian says:
This issue has already been debated and discussed in Scotland for around a year. MSPs have been besieged with information and ideas.
OK then Brian, we take it that there need be no debate in our parliament for anything if the very 'objective' and ever reliable 'media' have presented all the information.
What an absolutely idiotic and embarassing remark for someone of your supposed status and position to make. You reveal yourself as an apologist for Labour's disgracefull behaviour.
Hopefully one day, we the public will have the opportunity to demand an explanation for some of the so called journalism that emanates from the BBC.
I really don't think I have ever seen so many reprehensible people in positions of relative power as exist in today's Scotland.
Words don't fail me, it's just that the mods wouldn't allow them.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
...I fully support Independence but
God, not another one.
Aren't you aware that the policy has widespread support of those in the front line?
The police and medical professiona want this policy as do the licence traders and very many members of the public - I know not if there is a majority.
There will be loopholes and areas that it cannot address but for goodness sake at least acknowledge that there are important bodies outwith politics that support the idea.
Labour's policy appears to be thus:
If the SNP advocate it then we will oppose it.
We know there is a problem but we do not have an alternative, we will oppose it.
We know that both the police and the medical profession support it but we will oppose it.
We know that evidence suggests sigificant health benefits to this but we will oppose it.
Iain Gray has been told to put obstacles in the way, regardless of the effect on his country.
Even Gary Robertson's anger could be felt this morning when he gave Gray a real grilling for a change - how refreshing that was.
A real media would have rendered Labour unelectable in Scotland by now.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
An uncomfortable subject for Labour - I wonder if we'll see 'blog whoosh' with this one.
Complain about this comment
John Ruddy:
#6.
"I've said it before and I'll say it again, minimum pricing won't change the drinking culture. It won't affect the price of Buckfast and the price of alcopops wont change much. All it will affect is the price that ordinary folk pay to sensibly enjoy alcohol at home. Drunken yobs don't go out on Teco Value Bitter or Larger!"
I don't believe you understand the policy. First of all it's not suppose to change our drinking culture.
Second of all it's suppose to target the strongest drinks that sell at rock bottom prices. I don't and never will buy Buckfast, so can't comment on it's prices.
Third, evidence has been shown that the average cost will target extreme drinkers and not responsible drinkers. The extra cost will be around 10 pounds per year for responsible drinkers, so I suspect you'll be fine.
Fourth, it's not targeting 'drunken yobs'. However I was never one to drink outside at night (I have more class) but my friends certainly did and yes, it was usually local larger being drunk. Last but not least if I was to buy alcohol to drink at a friends I tended to buy cheap cider or whatever was on special at the supermarket.
Cheap and cheerful is my motto.
Just because you experienced something should not suggest that everyone else in this country has had the very same experience.
Complain about this comment
#7, I quite agree with you on the Yes, Minister analogy.
Complain about this comment
Whatever happened to the Labour party that supported social responsibility; that cared for old folk; the Labour party that made new housing schemes 'dry'? Where did it go?
Instead, I have heard it said today, with a straight face, that raising the price of the cheapest alcohol will be harmful to alcoholics and their families. Eh? Better abolish all excise duties then, even make drink totally free...that will obviously improve matters.
As for the one about the fact that any money raised would go to retailers' profits and not the government, I presume the Labour party now supports giving all fiscal and tax powers to the Scottish parliament so they can set a minimum price through excise duty. Their current bait-and-switch devolution proposal (either sometime or maybe never...) fails to mention this, funnily enough.
So, does anyone in the Labour party actually think the current situation is acceptable? Or that a minimum pricing policy, as supported overwhelmingly by doctors and the police, amongst others, is actually, really, genuinely a bad thing? Come off it.
Complain about this comment
Once again labour put business and political point scoring ahead of scotlands people. How many times can they shoot themselves in the foot? best not do it on a friday or saturday night, you'll have a long wait in A&E you self serving soon to be dole cheque collectors
Complain about this comment
I heard Ian Gray on Good Morning Sccotland defending his position that one of the reasons why Labour were blocking the plans for minimum pricing on alcohol was because "there was no taxation benefit from this for the people of Scotland". Sadly, the person who asked the question, Gary Robertson, failed to mention to Mr Gray that the Scottish Parliament has no powers to increase the taxation on alcohol. I knew that, but while I was surprised that the BBC journalist did not know it, I was even more astounded that the leader of the Scottish Labour Party didn't know it!
The information curently coming out of the Iraq inquiry is shedding light on just how low and cynical the party which once claimed to defend the ordinary working people of this nation has sunk. The Labour cynicism over alcohol pricing is breathtaking and I wonder just how many of their MSPs actually believe what their Scottish leadership are asking them to vote for!
Complain about this comment
link to Richard Simpson's article in the Scotsman
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Richard-Simpson-Minimum-pricing-.5858745.jp
Complain about this comment
I work as a Consultant in an Emergency Department. Unfortunately we are overwhelmed by alcohol related presentations, not just involving "pub drinkers" as a previous correspondent has stated, & not just at weekends. It is endemic.
We see many patients who have ingested large amounts of cheap cider, lager etc & who I have no doubt would not need our services if these cheap drinks were not so readily available.
I am of no particular political persuasion, however, it does seem to me that the other parties are trying to score political points & undermine the SNP whenever they can, rather than supporting sensible policy.
Scotland has a significant problem with alcohol related health issues, & anything that may have a positive impact on the future health of individuals, & indeed our nation should be supported by all.
Complain about this comment
#11
If the policy isnt designed to change the drinking culture, then why has every alcohol action charity and SNP minister talked about chaning Scotlands drinking culture? You're right, this policy wont change it, but thats the reason given my the SNP for introducing it! I don't drink Buckfast either, but I can see what they charge for it in the shops - its £7 quid a bottle here, and 40p a unit wont change that. Extreme drinkers wont be affected by price, as its an addiction - putting cigs up to £5 a packet hasnt had a massive affect on smoking addiction, and gambling addiction definitely isnt affected by cost!
Complain about this comment
#6
John Rudddy
It doesn't matter how often you say it you are talking rubbish.
There is a mountain of evidence which says increasoing the price of drink lowers consumption - though I hardly think the proposition that raising the price of any commodity means that less of it gets bought would require any evidence for most of us.
Complain about this comment
Labour's Richard Simpson criticizes the SNP minimum pricing plan because it wouldn't provide sufficient deterrant to those with the greatest alchohol problems.
Well of course alcoholics are not going to be deterred by minimum pricing.The whole point of minimum pricing is to stop young people who are getting caught in the drinking culture from going to supermarkets and buying loads of cheap cider etc on special offer.
I think Labour know that.Their behaviour over minimum pricing is just the same as their posturing on constitutional change.Muddy the waters,cause as much confusion and obfuscation as possible and try to paralyse the political process.
Complain about this comment
The only thing more predicable than the party politicisation of the issue is the content of the posts on here. Greenock Boys posts are particularly over the top even for his notoriously blinkered eyes.
The politics of this don't seem that difficult, as Brian says it is common practice for governments to prove the legal basis before bringing forward proposed legislation. Why didn't they publish the advice? Only one reason I can see is to play politics.
It seems to me that if the will to make this happen was apparent on both sides then it would have happened. Truth is both lots are more interested in a game of politics which is more important to them than the issue. This is about party politics and not the nations health.
I am not convinced minimum pricing would have made that much real difference, but I support it because it would have started to change the culture by starting the process of making excessive drinking socially unacceptable in much the same way as smoking now is.
But as can be seen from the posts here the rhetoric and politics and petty point scoring are more important to most.
Complain about this comment
#19 When you talk about a normal product, then the answer is of course raising the price lowers demand. However, as has been pointed out many times before - alcohol is an addictive substance. If someone drinks enough of it on a regular basis, they become addicted and will buy it whatever the price.
Complain about this comment
So, at the elections the line will be :
Vote Unionist for dangerous streets, poor health, early death, domestic violence and ruined lives.
I can see a few flaws in that plan.
Complain about this comment
I'll re-post my tuppenceworth here as it's now the correct subject...
I listned to GMS this morning and I couldn't believe what I heard from IGor. Let's have another (no doubt expensive) commission to try to find an excuse to trash the SNP proposals for minimum pricing! Do we need a commission to find out what we already know; that Scotland has a drink problem. No. If you need any proof of this try visiting and A&E (alcoholics & emergency) department of ANY Scottish hospital on a Friday or Saturday night.
The cost to the taxpayer to deal with this problem is horrendous. Meanwhile the profits from the sale of alcohol go to the (far too powerful) supermarkets, the (far too powerful) alcohol industry, and, not leastly, the treasury.
There should be a "damage" tax applied to alcohol, which should be set at a level that does create a minimum price. The revenue should be used to a) educate people about the dangers of alcohol, and b) pay for the damage that alcohol does. Alcohol related incidents should be removed from our A&E's - there should be a separate section in the hospitals for alcohol related emergencies. This should be staffed with police and medics trained to deal with the idiots that get themselves into alcoholic states. Why should ordinary citizens have to face the disgraceful (and often violent) behavior witnessed in A&E just because they have a REAL emergency on a Friday or Saturday night - they shouldn't.
I'm old enough to remember a time when there was a ban on the advertising of alcohol. This MUST be brought back. Half of the problem with alcohol is the scandalous advertising of alcohol aimed at the younger generations. "Drink OUR hooch and you too can "look cool", or get a beautiful (always scantily clad) woman". The advertising of alcohol was banned for good reason. It sells alcohol.
We have allowed the drinks industry away with far too much and they should be brought back under control. Of course this won't happen under westmonster rule, they have many rich friends in the industry and many MPs have vested interests.
I think we should have a commission on the validity of the Labour party in Scottish politics. It would be more productive, and money well spent in my view.
Complain about this comment
#15 caltonite,
The same point about taxation was made in the intro to Morning Extra, one of the callers pulled them up about it, but it was repeated several times in the programme by callers and they were not corrected.
One wonders if the folks at radio Scotland are really ignorant of the remit of Holyrood or whether they choose to ignore it.
Complain about this comment
#7: dazzlingpuddock -
"Who exactly is it aimed at?"
People who regularly drink to excess, but who are not dependent on alcohol.
"Alcoholics will put drink before most other things so dearer drink simply means less to spend on food, not less drink!"
Quite so. Which is why minimum pricing, amongst other measures, aims to influence peoples' behaviour, to reduce their overall alcohol consumption before they become alcoholics.
Complain about this comment
#18 John
You don't seem to get the point: Hopefully the increased price would get peple before they become problem drinkers (and are addicted). There is not doubt that when you are young, price = availability. Increasing price reduces availability. And so, as with all addictive substances, if the availability is reduced then hopefully the number of addicts is subsequently reduced. This policy might not reduce the number of existing addicts, but it will hopefully reduce the numbers that we have to cope with in future. It is called forward thinking, and is quite popular in some parts.
John
Complain about this comment
19. sneckedagain
Note your normal conciliatory open minded approach.
Most of those ending up in A&E are younger and feel it is a requirement of a night out to get as drunk as possible. They live all week for the weekend. Minimum pricing will make no difference to them.
If you can't see that then you merely highlight how out of touch with reality you are.
Complain about this comment
As someone who has direct experience of working in an A+E department on a Friday night I feel I have a right to comment here. On average I would say about 70% of the people attending A+E after 10pm are drunk, abusive to staff and a sad reflection of the state of this country with regards drinking. Something not to be proud of and don't forget comes at great expense to the tax payer (health provision out of hours being more expensive in staff terms as its considered overtime).
There is no such thing as a happy drunk in hospital, agressive, abusive and not just to staff but to fellow non-drinking patients (usually kids, elderly people and people in genuine pain and discomfort). Then there are the teenagers, usually unconscious picked up off the street after spending pocket money on cheep cider and alcohol loaded beer (biggest bang for the buck is their motto). Usually these kids end up admitted to the hospital overnight (taking up valuable bed space).
Implementation is required, not more conversation.....are you listening Iain Gray????
So as far as I am concerned that is the real world context of this problem, one I had hoped that the political parties would address like they did with the smoking ban, sensibly and with the good of the health of the nation foremost in their mind. Sadly the reality seems to be that self interest and point scoring has been put ahead of expert opinion.
Does Iain Gray seriously expect us to believe that he knows more than the NHS and the Police about the health and social problems in this country, don't make me laugh, he can't even spot and issue which is nothing to do with politik and just as likely to improve the health of this country as the smoking ban.....which party was it that introduced that again????
Whisky industry is unaffected, Tories don't have a leg to stand on. A commission (how much is that going to cost?) to produce watered down proposals that will undoubtedly put the interests of Labour, Tesco and the likes far ahead of the right thing to do for the health of the nation.
Disgusting, issues of the health of the nation transcend political positioning in my mind, clearly we are into the 'silly season' leading up to the GE already.
Drink costs the NHS 3Bn a year the longer nothing is done the bigger this figure will get, and whilst its get bigger (along with the budget deficit) we can be safe in the knowledge that Labour will be spending more tax payers money on another talking shop whilst our hard pressed NHS front line staff continue to deal with their ineptitude on this particular issue.
Somebody give him a shake please.
Complain about this comment
The Will Fyffe song is instructive; 12/6 (62.5p) when the song was written is around a fortieth of equivalent modern price, meaning a bottle of Scotch should cost around £25.
Booze has never been so cheap or available, and even the proposed 40p minimum pricing seems negligible to me. Presumably the powers that be and their pals are worried about the thin end of the wedge entering their profitable area of drug dealing.
Complain about this comment
John Ruddy:
#18.
"If the policy isnt designed to change the drinking culture, then why has every alcohol action charity and SNP minister talked about chaning Scotlands drinking culture?"
It's being brought in under a Health Bill. That's why it's suppose to tackle the extreme drinkers since it effects them more so compared to other drinkers.
"I don't drink Buckfast either, but I can see what they charge for it in the shops - its £7 quid a bottle here, and 40p a unit wont change that."
And your point is? Buckfast is a chav drink, it's not a alcoholics favourite choice.
"Extreme drinkers wont be affected by price, as its an addiction - putting cigs up to £5 a packet hasnt had a massive affect on smoking addiction, and gambling addiction definitely isnt affected by cost!"
Please explain why it's reported a mininum price of 60p per unit will have an effect on the worst offenders? I see no other claims to back your argument. You'll have to provide them please.
Complain about this comment
Labour won't support the minimum price since they say the increased revenues will only go into the pockets of the manufacturers and retailers.
The solution to Labour's difficulty is obvious - they ought to be pressuring Westminster to have control of alcohol duty devolved to Holyrood. After all, they're always telling us that only Labour can influence Westminster. They had the perfect opportunity to do so yesterday when Murphy announced Labour's proposals regarding the Calman Commission.
But of course they're not doing that. They'd prefer to risk the health of the Scottish people and score cheap political points rather than upset their Westminster colleagues.
Complain about this comment
I don't think anyoen is saying that Scotland doesn't have a drink problem, nor that it is costing us very large sums of money as well as all the social consequence (domestic viokence etc). The issue is, will this policy change any of that, and the answer is no, it wont! It won't affect many of the products that "problem drinkers" use, and won't change the habits of those who are addicted to alcohol.
Complain about this comment
No wonder people get fed up with politics labour will never vote through any bill if the SNP come up with somthing positive for scotland day in day out its badmouth the SNP lets at least try something, but labour always critisize the SNP. What has labour come up with since they`ve been in opposition (no alternitive have they) they`ve had time but nothing.
Complain about this comment
Has the Scottish government shared the advice on the legality of this? According to Richard Simspon, the FM promised to do so - but at the time of writing his article it had not been done.
Complain about this comment
John Ruddy:
#22.
"When you talk about a normal product, then the answer is of course raising the price lowers demand. However, as has been pointed out many times before - alcohol is an addictive substance. If someone drinks enough of it on a regular basis, they become addicted and will buy it whatever the price."
Then a mininum price ensuring the most cheapest alocholic drinks available will become more expensive and ensuring that those alcoholics don't have that much money to spend on drinks, should be welcomed...
If you posted a better idea instead of mininum pricing then you may actually make a better point. Since your not suggesting any other ideas why knock back mininum pricing? It may actually help the country' or may not but least something is being tried.
Complain about this comment
and now of course we have labour in Scotland setting up yet another commission the cost of which is to be paid by the public again and Mr Gray announces he already knows the outcome of it before they have even decided who gets to rip us off this time.
what's wasting a couple of £ million between PALS.
As far as New labour is concerned in Scotland :
BIG business is now far more important than ,starving weans,the trashing of Scottish culture and society and tackling one of the biggest health disasters to hit our country. to name but a few!
Brian -"It's entirely right indeed essential to ask awkward questions and expect answers"
I Look forward to "Reporting Scotland " will you stick with the above or will you and your mates resort to type after such a short time?
Sid
Complain about this comment
I would like one of the highly paid ministers to explain to me why I should pay more to stop an alcoholic drinking, I don't cause trouble or end up in hospital as a result of my drinking. Higher prices on drink mean alcoholics drink cheaper alcohols, meths etc, resulting in higher costs to the NHS and more deaths. The younger generation, who are seen to be troubled by drink, can afford it at whatever cost, because they have more expendable income this bill will result in increased off-sales of stronger alcohol.
The only solution I can see is, as with cars, if you have an alcohol related incident you pay for your ambulance and maybe an initial charge for attending A & E.
Voting this down won't make me vote for any of those parties just grateful and maybe raise a glass to them.
Complain about this comment
I am not a big fan of the SNP, but I think their minimum pricing policy is a good idea, and I am disappointed by the attitude of the other parties on this one. I think the rise of "Tesco Value vodka" is the kind of thing that could be dealt with through minimum pricing, and I can't see how it would have a big impact on your £30 bottle of Glenmorangie!
Complain about this comment
I first became politicized in my early teens, at a time when the Tories held power and seemed only to use it in order to maintain their grip on that power (they certainly didn't use it for the good of the people of Scotland). The funny things is (and it's not funny ha ha) is that I feel the same way about Labour now as I did then about the Tories. Everything that Labour in Holyrood do is with a view to regaining power. Their attitude is that only they have the right to be in government, and everything, from the needs of the electorate to their integrity comes second. It's just shame that the media in Scotland shares their lack of integrity.
Complain about this comment
#36
As for trying something else, how about using the licensing system? Retailers and public houses that sell the problem drinks to the problem drinkers should change their ways or have their licence removed. Voluntary schemes have been tried in some areas, and have worked well to reduce the amount of under age drinking and general loutishness (which inevitably leads to A&E). Result. As for the remark "it may actually help the country or it may not but at least something is being tried" remark just smacks of a politicians knee-jerk reaction - Something must be done, this is something, this must be done. No thought as to how it should work (or indeed WHETHER it will work). Too often in this country we look at new laws to solve problems which could be adequately dealt with if only existing laws were properly and sensibly applied.
Complain about this comment
"38. At 2:59pm on 26 Nov 2009, jimboweb wrote:
Voting this down won't make me vote for any of those parties just grateful and maybe raise a glass to them."
If what you're drinking costs less than 40p per unit, you'll excuse me if I don't join you!
Complain about this comment
It has now got to the stage that if I were in the Scottish Government and announced that I could pass Gold I Gray would state that the ingots are the wrong size and this would constitute a health problem because everybody would get a sore back carting them around.
There are different drinkers
Jaikies who I had to move thro today as I got my paper they consume Strong Lager washed down with a cheeky little litre of cider all this at 1030am.
The Teenagers who wont be out until the weekend with Vodka/cider/lager/and anything else that gives them a charge like Bucky.
The Jakies from my area don't drink alcopops it is too dear. Get the message Mr Gray and Jakie Baillie.
Complain about this comment
jimboweb:
#38
"Higher prices on drink mean alcoholics drink cheaper alcohols, meths etc, resulting in higher costs to the NHS and more deaths."
You don't understand 'mininum pricing'. It's not effecting drink, but specific types of low cost, high strength alcohol.
"The younger generation, who are seen to be troubled by drink, can afford it at whatever cost, because they have more expendable income this bill will result in increased off-sales of stronger alcohol."
I am seventeen. I can tell you that most young individuals will earn the mininum wage, not that many are fortunate enough to be in strong positons within there careers. Therefore if prices are high we will be effected, the statistics speak for themselves. The recession has hurt the younger generation far more and as a result I doubt your opinion is actually the whole truth on the matter.
Complain about this comment
29. ross_shire_lad
Maybe you need give yourself a shake. You need to think back to the smoking ban legislation. A major effort was made to build consensus across party lines. That is what is missing here. Why not publish the legal basis? Why make so little effort if the issue is so important to the SNP? Because they couldn't really give a stuff, it is all about politics.
40p a unit would make no difference on a Friday / Saturday night.
It would however have started the required culture change. A missed opportunity by all but I repeat just petty politics and this will turn off even more voters.
Thomas
Obviously you don't have to live with the effects of teenage drinkers and Buckie. Otherwise you would have a different view. Any measure that won't stop the Buckie problem is flawed.
Complain about this comment
John Ruddy:
#41.
"As for trying something else, how about using the licensing system? Retailers and public houses that sell the problem drinks to the problem drinkers should change their ways or have their licence removed. Voluntary schemes have been tried in some areas, and have worked well to reduce the amount of under age drinking and general loutishness (which inevitably leads to A&E)."
It's not suppose to target underage drinkers either! (it will have an effect but its not created for that purpose) By the way how can you tell a problem drinker? If I am 18 I am entitled and legally can not be refused to be sold alcohol (unless already drunk). Just what do you think mininum pricing is for, please?
"Result. As for the remark "it may actually help the country or it may not but at least something is being tried" remark just smacks of a politicians knee-jerk reaction - Something must be done, this is something, this must be done. No thought as to how it should work (or indeed WHETHER it will work). Too often in this country we look at new laws to solve problems which could be adequately dealt with if only existing laws were properly and sensibly applied."
The evidence speaks for itself. The amount of bodies that are in favour and other groups also speaks for itself, what evidence have you shown already that is actually useful to back your arguments? None.
If you have nothing to say why say anything at all? If you have an idea, a real idea I would consider it. However I see none coming from you and therefore I am prepared to back mininum pricing.
Complain about this comment
North Highlander:
It's not a policy specifically targeting teenagers or chavs drinking buckfast. Thats the point I am making.
There is more to this policy, which is why its being brought forward as a Health Bill.
The teenage-issue and chavs are a different problem and we should have a seperate discussion on that.
Thats all I am suggesting here.
Complain about this comment
Sadly Mr gray simply proves, yet again, that he is little more than the latest graduate of the McConnell school of numptiness. Whilst minority government harboured thoughts that we may be heading towards grown-up politics, once again we are disillusioned. Perhaps to get to that stage we need to stop sending the honours graduates to London and have them working out of Edinburgh. Alternatively we could just give Mr Salmond a bigger mandate, or better still, both.
Complain about this comment
#46
So the argument is now that since there is no other ideas you can agree with, you'll back minimum pricing? Once again, if there are problem drinkers (and seemingly the A&E departments can see them, so should the publicans and retailers) then existing legislation should be used. When was the last time someone lost their licence for selling alcohol irresponsbly? Hardly ever.
The point about our laws are that they should de proportionate. They should not affect the majority, when seeking to punish or constrain the minority. Minimum pricing will hardly affect the problem hard core drinkers, whilst affecting the majority who drink responsibly on a low budget.
As for "real ideas" I have already given one idea, which has been tried on a voluntary basis amongst local licencees, and it has had a marked effect on the amount of problem drinking, anti-social behaviour etc. Make this mandatory across the country and you will have a bigger effect than increasing the price on a few cheap drinks.
Complain about this comment
This may not be a policy specifaccly targetting teenagers or Buckfast drinkers. Try telling that to the SNP ministers, MSPs and other groups who are in our media every night promoting this scheme.
If you want to reduce the amount of alcohol drunk to excess (which is what causes the problems in A&E and in general health), then minimum pricing wont change it one bit. You look in Tesco's on a Friday night and see who it is buying the 12 packs of lager on special offer - its families or pensioners - not the "lager louts" or the alcoholics.
Complain about this comment
Where's oldnat?
Complain about this comment
I feel absolutely disgusted by Labour's ridiculous antics. I am furious in fact.
It so typifies them to do nothing about an issue like this and to also prevent others from doing anything at all about an issue which is as serious is any issue can get.
Frankly, what further proof do we need of Labour's preference for a Scottish populus who remain ignorant and sozzled and mired in poverty so that they will vote mindlessly for the good old "party of the people" who supposedly represent them. Sickening.
This issue is one that effects people directly in their everyday lives. It is not some airy fairy banking controversy or some spat about who subsidises who in this fractured little island of ours.
This is actually an issue that people have to deal with day in and day out, and what kind of aciton do we get from Labour?
Captain Zilcho.
Labour are playing pantomime politics with Scotland. They are so obsessed and frantic in trying to hang on to power that everything they do - every last bit of it - is designed purely and utterly to feed their own selfish appetite for power. Nothing else. They are not a party of government. They are a party of self-serving political reprobates who are more concerned with themselves than they are with serving the people.
By the gods, when I think about how much value I placed in Labour during the Thatcher era, how I looked upon them as our way out. How misguided was that? It makes me sick to think I was so gullible as to trust these people.
I will never make that mistake again. The Labour party are the scourage of Scotland. They are run by desperados who have degraded their party and made the appointment of new Labour MPs, such as the amicable Willie Bain, a complete farce and waste of time.
In Scotland, absolutely everything that Labour do (or don't do, to be precise) is designed very simply undermine the functions of the presiding government. But they have taken it to such extreme lengths that I cannot think of them now as anything more than a militant troupe of obnoxious tyrannts.
That fiasco of a Calman Commision is insult enough to our intelligence. But this issue runs much deeper. I am sick of our country being the drunken bum of Western Europe. But I am especially sick of Labour. APparently for them our drunken bum status is just fine.
May they perish by the loss of a thousand elections.
And ditto Online Ed's assessment of Brian's here issuing an apology for Labour. I mightily enjoy Brian's coverage and appreciate the space given here. But, really, there are no excuses for Scotland status as an alcoholic wasteland. There are no excuses for Labour in preventing the action required for dealing with it.
This is the most astonishing and dispicable example of Labour doing Scotland down I['ve ever seen. But it is, after all, what they do best.
I wish I could say I feel better now after venting my spleen. But I don't. I've never disliked a party so much as I dislike Labour now. I'm aghast. I think that what they are doing here is causing more damage to Scotland than anything, absoutely anything, that Thatcher did. Appalling. Simply appalling.
Complain about this comment
And it came to pass, just as Rob had predicted, that the Labour party would fold and roll over on the unit price issue. The Scotch Whisky Association should have saved it's self the dough, they didn't need a lobby firm to pressure Labour. For it is not the party of the people that it was - that died in the winter of discontent – it is the party of big business; again!
As predicted, it was the answers to the endless questions that didn’t suit them. What the (insert own choice obscenity) have labour been doing while this has been on the radar? And why does Gray want a commission that HE organises (more delay, obfuscation and mithering)? I can only assume that it’ll be the same worthy people that he and his party have disregarded, that’ll be invited? So, no trust for the government research and expert opinion then? You couldn’t make it up.
As for the Tories, I expected nothing else and for the Lib Dems, besides their extinction, what were they thinking about?
As an ex labour voter, and a boozer, I can hardly put into words how ANGRY this makes me - the only words I can summon with the gravitas for the situation were spoken a long time ago……”forgive them father, they know not what they do”.
Complain about this comment
#1 Calum McKayThe SNP have tried to deal with the problem, the other parties have tried to score political pints,...
Nice one Calum ;o)
Complain about this comment
#50 John Ruddy,
Don't you think it might help to change peoples' attitude to alcohol in the long run?
I agree, it won't help people who are problem drinkers now and certainly won't solve any problems on it's own, but as part of a package perhaps.
Also don't agree that young people are the only ones with a problem. Middle aged people may not be out on the streets causing mayhem but the rise in alcohol related illness is alarming.
Complain about this comment
"50. At 3:51pm on 26 Nov 2009, John Ruddy wrote:
You look in Tesco's on a Friday night and see who it is buying the 12 packs of lager on special offer - its families or pensioners - not the "lager louts" or the alcoholics."
Do you have hard figures for this or is it anecdotal?
What do you think the reasons are for the vast majority of health professionals and senior police officers support minimum pricing?
Complain about this comment
John Ruddy:
#49.
"So the argument is now that since there is no other ideas you can agree with, you'll back minimum pricing?"
That is not what I said. I do believe you'd make a better case by proposing an idea instead of simply shooting down mininum pricing. I was sceptical at first but evidence has been produced that has calmed my sceptical views. I now wait to see the results of mininum pricing myself, although its not going to happen.
"Once again, if there are problem drinkers (and seemingly the A&E departments can see them, so should the publicans and retailers) then existing legislation should be used. When was the last time someone lost their licence for selling alcohol irresponsbly? Hardly ever."
If a person makes it to A&E because of alcohol its a bit late using preventive measures, but I still have to ask what counts as a problem drinker? Some people are just born ugly and not nice to look at, it doesn't mean we stop them from drinking alcohol.
Tomorro you'll suggest we ban fatties from buying unhealthy foods because they look overweigh...
Here is an idea. I could purchase alcohol for my friends underage of 18... I am not defending all premises because I suspect some do break the law but I know that there not the sole problem either.
"The point about our laws are that they should de proportionate. They should not affect the majority, when seeking to punish or constrain the minority. Minimum pricing will hardly affect the problem hard core drinkers, whilst affecting the majority who drink responsibly on a low budget."
The worst offenders will no longer be able to afford as much alcohol as usual. The recent evidence provided estimated that mininum pricing would cost the responsible drinker roughly 10 pounds per year, it may be alot but in my view its affordable.
Here is something else that was suggested; The vast majority of recognised beer and wine brands favoured by responsible drinkers would see no change in their price.
or do you prefer the; The majority of large bottles of cheap white cider, which often have a high alcohol content, would see their prices rise, with some more than doubling?
"As for "real ideas" I have already given one idea, which has been tried on a voluntary basis amongst local licencees, and it has had a marked effect on the amount of problem drinking, anti-social behaviour etc. Make this mandatory across the country and you will have a bigger effect than increasing the price on a few cheap drinks."
The policy is not supposed to tackle specifically the weekend problem drinkers, anti-social behaviour etc its suppose to help against the health consequences of long-term alcohol abuse. I can tell you, not every person with alchol related illnesses are alcoholics or binge drinkers but simple individuals who choose to drink slightly too much quite regulary over a course of years.
Complain about this comment
John Ruddy:
#50.
"If you want to reduce the amount of alcohol drunk to excess (which is what causes the problems in A&E and in general health), then minimum pricing wont change it one bit. You look in Tesco's on a Friday night and see who it is buying the 12 packs of lager on special offer - its families or pensioners - not the "lager louts" or the alcoholics."
If alcohol becomes more expensive, especially the strong alcohol thats sold at rock bottom prices, would it not prevent individuals who drink 'to get drunk' from purchasing as much as before?
Ah I see, so problem drinkers are individuals without families and are too young to be reffered as a pensioners?
Complain about this comment
#50 John Ruddy
You keep on missing the point. There is more than one type of problem drinker, not just the most visible ones that you see. Why do you think that just because someone is a pensioner or has a family they will not suffer health problem by drinking cheep strong drink to excess.
Also if you listened to the license trade, you will also hear that many of the problems on a friday and saturday nights are being caused by people getting tanked up at home before going to the pub, already out their skulls. They are doing this for cost reasons, and the drink of choice in that scenario is the cheep lager, cider and vodka. Sure in pubs they may turn to alcopops, but by then the damage is done.
as for: "Once again, if there are problem drinkers (and seemingly the A&E departments can see them, so should the publicans and retailers) then existing legislation should be used."
This is just a silly statement. The A+E departments can see them because they are drunk in their place of work. I'm sure you could spot a drunk person if he/she sat down beside you while you were trying to work. and before you point out that retailers will be surrounded by sober people as well, then I would suggest to you that most people buy booze in off licenses when they are slightly more sober than in pubs. This is for the simple reason that in pubs they have to buy only one or two drinks at a time, in off licenses they buy a supply for the whole evening to get drunk later.
John
Complain about this comment
Can someone please tell me why Labour keep saying Minimum Alcohol Pricing will destroy the Whisky industry when the SNP's proposals clearly only target lower value alcohol like white lightning cider and cheap Alkopops like K Ice???
Because of the price of most Whiskys they are above the minimum price proposed and therefore are not affected by this proposal in any way. If anything they may get a little boost, if people are having to pay extra for the cheap crap anyway they may just decide to splash out on some of our famous whisky.
Can someone also answer me why the media keeps reporting these claims from Labour, when surely they must know the facts and that its a load of nonsense, I thought the media represented a truthful unbiased approach ? I was wrong !!
Complain about this comment
As #32 has suggested, the first and obvious solution would be to increase duty but Holyrood lacks this power, Gray and Dr Simpson seem to be missing this point on purpose. Have they suggested an alternative solution yet?
John Ruddy – various posts, you seem to suggest price will mainly affect those on a low budget but not necessarily heavy drinkers. Doesn’t changes in duty and vat already do this? At least minimum pricing targets alcohol content.
So what is the alternative? How do we influence those with larger disposable incomes? Rationing?
I was in favour of trying the minimum pricing but it looks dead now.
The problem is getting out of control. We now have people dying of liver failure in their 20s.
Complain about this comment
Actually John Ruddy,
Its often people like myself ( a student ) and my friends that are purchasing that cheap lager and binge drinking with it, and i do that at sainsburys, I assume that is a supermarket yeah? So your analogy is flawed. Yeah my father does it too, but really cheap booze appeals to everyone, so it will target the problem. And as a student with hardly any money i'd happily pay more for that crate to ensure that the homeless, the under-age and the most vulnerable cannot afford to binge on cheap booze, or at least they are deterred from doing so.
Minimum pricing may not solve Scotlands alcohol problem, the SNP don't think it will neither do I, what it does is provide a start, something to work from in the effort to deal with this situation.
Complain about this comment
nate-oz
This Douglas Fraser's explanation of the potential effect on the whisky industry, copied from his blog on this site:-
Then there's the export argument, which is the one that really matters to Scotch whisky. It exports around 90% of its output, and fights a constant battle to break down trade barriers.
The rewards of having done so are considerable, and the rewards of continuing to do so - in India, for instance - could be awesome.
To impose a floor on minimum pricing, the Scottish government would have to use a public health exemption from international trade agreements.
That's possible, but not easy to use, and it's open to legal challenge. If successful, the whisky industry's argument is that foreign governments, under pressure from their domestic drinks industries, will use that as an excuse to put up their own tax barriers.
And in countries such as South Korea, they could use the health argument to differentiate between higher tax on high alcohol content (Scotch whisky) and lower tax on less unhealthy, lower alcohol content (the local distillation).
Complain about this comment
21. northhighlander
"I am not convinced minimum pricing would have made that much real difference, but I support it because it would have started to change the culture by starting the process of making excessive drinking socially unacceptable in much the same way as smoking now is."
Straight to the point with a perfectly reasonable opinion. Unfortunately, you spoiled it by serving up more of the usual fare.
"It seems to me that if the will to make this happen was apparent on both sides then it would have happened. Truth is both lots are more interested in a game of politics"
So, there we have it! The SNP must share blame for Labour's utterly reprehensible behaviour. A party whose only remaining purpose is to destroy everything in their wake, on the long march back into the political wilderness. Sadly, despite all the evidence against them, that's the nearest we'll get to a just conclusion. I can't wait!
"The politics of this don't seem that difficult, as Brian says it is common practice for governments to prove the legal basis before bringing forward proposed legislation. Why didn't they publish the advice? Only one reason I can see is to play politics."
Didn't you pause to ponder before writing that?
About, for instance, the Iraq Inquiry, years of fraud and deception at Westminster or the McCrone Report, to cite but a few examples of Labour's impeccable record on legality and openness.
Complain about this comment
#52 GloaminInTheRoamin
I made the same political discoveries and journey myself. Labour stinks of self-interest and a need, a NEED to keep people impoverished and ignorant. A complete betrayal of those honest decent folk who just want to live in a better country than we have historically had and who gave Brown a career as the supposed defender of Scotland's interest.
There is nothing Labour can ever do now to persuade me to vote for them ever again. I look forward to the realignment that will need to happen for Labour after they are hammered at the General Election. It will be interesting to see if the tradionalists get to keep hold of the Labour brand. But there can be no denying that Labour has had 13 years in power and has quite literally wasted them - their core vote is no more prosperous than they were under the tories, and certainly no younger.
Complain about this comment
#60
It is the thin edge of the wedge argument again, but a particularly disingenuous version of it.
Their claim is that because it will affect whisky proportionally less than other, booze, then other countries might see it as a protectionism measure, and slap retaliatory taxes onto whisky. This of course neglects the fact that much of the cheap (apologies for previous spellings of this) booze that this will affect is infact also produced in Scotland and so any retaliatory measures would be unlawful under international trade rules as there is no positive discrimination in favour of scottish goods per se.
John
Complain about this comment
23. obviousalias
Death, violence and ruined lives! I hear they're hot topics in London at the moment.
The Labour legacy - what a bloody disgrace!
Complain about this comment
#45 Northhighlander
Have you ever thought that the SNP are actually trying to get above petty politicing and not responding to time wasting questions? There is a legitimate degree of scrutiny that the opposition parties should be subjecting policies to. My impression of the scrutiny that labour have been deploying (and it is only my impression and may be flawed) is that they have been trying to slow down the process with a never ending barrage of pointless and ridiculous scenarios. The real sad bit is that some quite valid scrutiny may have been lost in the forest of puerile, reactionary comments. At some point the SNP obviously threw their hands in the air and said enough. You may wish that had the patience of a saint, and fielded every enquiry, but I have to ask you who is to blame?
The real bit that makes me livid is that labour demanded a debate, the SNP obliged, then Labour announced their decision before the debate started. That is an unforgiveable waste of public resources and time.
John
Complain about this comment
@ John Ruddy
The only time I have heard Ms Sturgeon mention Buckfast is when questioned on it and then she explains that this is nothing to do with Buckie.
I do see chaps the look like they take a good bucket buying booze in supermarkets, then it tends to be the cheap beer on that week's offer.
Complain about this comment
ho ho
labour are getting hammered on this pricing issue, judging by the texts and mails received by the BBC - usual shout gone out for supporters to call in
Complain about this comment
I am concerned about the whisky industry but thesedays free trade is the norm and therefore in the long-term, I believe we can move forward from mininum pricing, if opposing countries decide to 'fight back.
However this is coming in under a Health Bill. It can be challenged but our whisky is expensive abroad compared to local versions. I don't believe individuals abroad can use legal measures to make it more expensive, especially as those purchasing our whisky are choosing a product because its naturally superior compared to their own versions.
Complain about this comment
64. albamac
Why not answer the point? If the legal basis was strong for this measure, why not share it with the opposition? Why not try to build a consensus for the policy?
Frankly I am not interested in going over the Iraq stuff again, you really make a bad point there, I agree that Tony Blair should answer for what has happened, but here in Scotland why did this policy fail for the lack of effort to build a consensus?
Easy to blame and point the finger, but the government have to answer for this as well. If this policy was so important I would have thought everything possible would have been tried to get it through, but no, it was a case of take it or leave it. What other reason than petty plitics could explain this?
Complain about this comment
Who was the Onionist-apologist-coward who reported my post on #5?
Have the guts to argue your disagreement with me in an open forum - not by trying to block censor what you disagree with. Calling Ian Grey a MORON isn't swearing - it's a subjective opinion that in my case never wavers from sun up till sun down. If this man can't credibly conduct a commission into a pre-plannned legislative white paper in an orderly fashion, why the hell should we stop and wait for him and the Labour Spin machine to create a policy that he has already pre-determined?
If you think he's the bee's knee's, feel free to use your voice to support him and all the good he does for Scotland.
That'll be a very short post.
Complain about this comment
I personally believe Labour are wrong to block mininum pricing because profits return to businesses, for example pubs/clubs instead of the public purse.
If we allow alcohol to become more expensive (certain brands anyway), it shall have a negative effect on these businesses. I know, I suspect we all believe these businesses contribute to our alcohol problem but not every business is as careless and at the end of the day, in order to see tomorro these businesses must sell alcohol.
If we make alcohol more expensive and potentially take away profits, why should we also seek to make the public more money? I'm all for change but I also believe businesses should not pay the cost, they provide a service and we should not pin the blame on anyone but ourselves, we at the end of the day choose to drink, binge drink despite the well known concerns.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
You absolutely know that Unionists are struggling when they start to accuse the party absolutely not making this a partypolitical issue of doing so.
In other words, everyone knows that the Labour party have rather clumsily played politics here, so rather than just acknowledge it they falsely accuse the SNP of doing it.
You only need have watched Nicola Sturgeon plead with Iain Gray on last weeks Politics Show to see how much the SNP bent over backwards to accomodate mature co-operation.
When the head of the Medical Association comes onto Radio Scotland and openly accuses Labour of playing politics with peoples lives then you know just how low the Unionists are prepared to stoop.
It was so bad that Glenn Campbell had to ho into rhetorical contortions in order to limit the damage - even substituting the usual SNP Government phrase for the more emotive 'nationalists'.
Anybody know how the phone in went this morning?
I caught the trailer where the host asked whether Labour's concerns were valid or wether MSP's [sic] were playing politics with the nations health - I paraphrase but that was the gist of it, a kind of back to front view of the issue.
Complain about this comment
I can understand the the thinking behind minimum pricing; make strong alcohol more expensive and less people will buy it.
But sadly this thinking is too simplistic.
If it were that simple why then do students regularly get drunk despite being on a limited budget - it's because they always find a way to afford booze.
Strong cider may become slightly more expensive but they'll still buy it because it'll do the job faster and cheaper than beer or wine.
At the moment a 2litre of bottle of strong cider (6%abv) costs around £2 and has nine units. That's roughly 20p a unit, doubling that won't hurt sales much.
£4 for guaranteed memory loss as opposed to two pints (if you're lucky) at the pub will still win.
I still can't fathom why people buy buckfast, you can't even cook with it, but sales of it won't change much either, nor will 20/20 and all that other paintstripper that passes as booze. As people still seem to want one outcome - to get drunk.
And this still won't stop those who go out on Friday or Saturday night and get hammered on Tennants or Carling, and yes I know licencees claim these people are drunk before they arrive but in that case, why are they being served? That's an offence.
As said above we already have numerous laws surrounding drinking and the sale of alcohol, it's about time they were used.
Start cracking down on underage drinking and sales to under-agers, crackdown on drinking in public places and landlords could actually stop serving drunks and kick them out when they've had too many.
And maybe the police and courts could make being charged with breach of the peace actually mean something.
And if people turn up at A+E drunk too often, send on mandatory alcohol counseling, failing that, bring in laws that fine them or put them in the cells for a spell.
Complain about this comment
#64. albamac
"A party whose only remaining purpose is to destroy everything in their wake,on the long march back into the political wilderness."
An excellent analogy albamac.Labour are conducting a scorched earth policy to deny the SNP the chance of doing something important for the good of society.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
70. At 5:15pm on 26 Nov 2009, govanite wrote:
ho ho
labour are getting hammered on this pricing issue, judging by the texts and mails received by the BBC - usual shout gone out for supporters to call in
Really? Are they imploring anti 'minimum pricing' people to call?
What next, a BBC poll showing that the majority of Scots don't support the legislation?
Complain about this comment
North Highlander:
#72.
I don't believe the nationalists or the Conservatives can be accused of petty politics. The Liberal Democrats and Labour have arguments that are flawed, quite embarressingly so.
The Conservatives are naturally concerned about the business prospects. I don't have an issue here because I do feel that individuals should become more responsible for their actions, but then why would the SNP make another policy fail? It does them no favours.
If you really look at the Liberal Democrats and Labour, why would you decide to attack the SNP since the SNP have also asked for all parties to put forward their own ideas if mininum pricing is so flawed?
This is a politically dangerous policy. I am not at all suprised that not everyone is getting into the boat, especially the amount of press against the idea to begin with.
However if this idea does not happen I will expect the Liberal Democrats and Labour to explain to the public and groups for the idea on why, and why their advice was ignored and why their spending more money on a similar proposal for a pricing mechinism.
I feel Labour have more to answer for compared to any other party.
Complain about this comment
#15
you say "The Labour cynicism over alcohol pricing is breathtaking "
Just wait until Labour lose GE. By the next party conference they will have thrown out Trident replacement and will be hounding the Tories about it --- and probably at the same time blaming them for Iraq and Afghanistan -- or am I being too cynical on that last one
Complain about this comment
a leading supermarket is selling a bottle of vodka for £5.04p. if a £9 bottle would go up to £10.50p, then the £5.04p bottle would go up to around £6 with minimum pricing.
would this really make any difference? would the £1.50p rise on a £9 bottle make any difference? besides, who would get the extra money? the retailers.
scotland has a drink problem? go to eastern europe, particularly russia, and see what the term drink problem really means.
as for the health side, why no minimum pricing on fags.
anyway, this is all pretty rich coming from a country whose most famous product and icon is whisky.
i totally disagree with this legislation, and my opposition is not political, it is that i do not think the state has any right telling business what they can sell their products for.
well, apart from james blunt cds
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Unionists and the media now reduced to hiding behind the 'It might be illegal' line.
Might be?
Pathetic.
Complain about this comment
If Iain Gray really wants to do something to stop Scots turning to drink I'll tell him.Leave politics.
Complain about this comment
So let me get this straight-
This minimum pricing is not going to stop alcoholics.
It is not going to affect pub drinkers or those who drink buckfast.
A bottle of vodka would suddenly become a tenner instead of 8 quid!!
Anyone who drinks beers in the house will be hit hardest but even then the temptation would be to start on spirits instead of lager!
I vote SNP but this is not a good policy of theirs!
It simply does not even attempt to tackle any of the real issues!!
The huge levels of alcoholism in deprived areas do not exist because of the availability of cheap alcohol but the alcohol exists because of the deprivation!
Buckie drinking neds who blight the central belt are not going to be the ones affected by this but they cause a vast amount of the problems that normal folk are genuinely worried about!
Those working in the NHS will clutch at any possibility of reducing problems caused by drink but this legislation will not make the slightest difference to their Saturday nights!
Apart from those drinking beer at home I fail to see who is going to be helped by this legislation!!
Complain about this comment
Online Ed:
I heard the phone in - was mostly supportive of the Government. BBC are having trouble here cos so many professionals - docs n cops etc - supporting this pricing move. Even Cochrane is supportive, live on the BBC now.
Complain about this comment
72. northhighlander
Northhighlander, Labour's argument seems to be that the money raised would not go into the public purse in the way of taxes.
I have a question.
Have they said how the Scottish (SNP) government is supposed to do that, lacking tax-raising powers?
It is at times well to think through all the ramifications of one's arguments. Just a thought.
Complain about this comment
#81 kenstor
The £5.04 bottle will also go up to £10.50. It is not a percentage increase.
John
Complain about this comment
Further, Labour argues that hiking drink prices would simply add to supermarket profits without providing revenue which could be used by Scottish authorities to fund action against alcohol abuse.
Logically, it is possible to pose a counter argument to that.
A LOGICAL counter argument to that, Mr. Taylor, is that the Scottish government does NOT have the power to do so... I do wonder why you chose not to point that out.
Complain about this comment
Well, knock me down with a feather! I've just heard Alan Cochrane on Radio Scotland, expressing his support for the SNP's line on alcohol pricing, and expressing incredulity at Labour's posturing and hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
Kenstor:
#81.
"would this really make any difference? would the £1.50p rise on a £9 bottle make any difference? besides, who would get the extra money? the retailers."
I mentioned in my comment #74 why retailers should be allowed to keep profits from mininum pricing. I shall also point out, have you seen the reports that estimated the extra amount of money would be paid annually? It's well over 100 pounds for the extreme drinkers, thats quite alot.
"scotland has a drink problem? go to eastern europe, particularly russia, and see what the term drink problem really means."
Yes, is our problem getting better? It's not therefore is it not suitable to act in order to stop the possible consequences of our problem?
"as for the health side, why no minimum pricing on fags.
anyway, this is all pretty rich coming from a country whose most famous product and icon is whisky."
Cigarettes does not pose as dangerous, I guess. Are you suggesting that since Scotland is famous for whisky, we should not work towards mininum pricing? That argument is flawed, as I hope you see.
"i totally disagree with this legislation, and my opposition is not political, it is that i do not think the state has any right telling business what they can sell their products for.
well, apart from james blunt cds"
The state does say what we sell products for. You pay tax on items, for example. So why should Scotland be different?
Complain about this comment
dazzlingpuddock:
#84.
"Anyone who drinks beers in the house will be hit hardest but even then the temptation would be to start on spirits instead of lager!"
This statement is wrong.
Now, do you believe you may be incorrect elsewhere in your comment?
Complain about this comment
The head of the BMI was pretty angry with Labour on the radio about one hour ago. This is all about Labour not wanting the SNP to get the credit for making progress in trying to resolve the alcohol problem. What a shower they are. Politics before peoples health. It's not surprising they reached this conclusion with Jackie Baillie back on the scene. The politics of hate at work!
This could be an oportunity for the Lib/Dems to make a name for themselves and support the policy.
Complain about this comment
I'd also add alcohol is cheap in France.
The same 2l of strong cider that is being cited as creating problems costs around 90p in a French supermarket. A bottle of wine can be as little as £1.50.
And yet, the French aren't causing staggering out the doors blind drunk at closing time, aren't fighting in the streets (except in Paris, but nothing unusual there) and aren't vomiting in shop fronts.
And why aren't they? Because the people in this country have a problem when it comes to alcohol. And it's not new.
There was concern over the gin palaces in Victorian times (admittedly that was more of an English problem, here it was whisky) with the same claims drinking was destroying society and there were worries workers in armament factories would turn up drunk in the thirties (hence closing times).
What needs to change is the attitude to being drunk. It's become glorified and idolised. In America, and I can't believe I am using them as a favourable comparison, if you get drunk most people look upon you with disdain, here it's cheers all round. That has to change.
Complain about this comment
91. At 5:51pm on 26 Nov 2009, Thomas_Porter wrote:
dazzlingpuddock:
#84.
"Anyone who drinks beers in the house will be hit hardest but even then the temptation would be to start on spirits instead of lager!"
This statement is wrong.
Now, do you believe you may be incorrect elsewhere in your comment?
Tell me why my statement is wrong Mr Porter, I may be wrong about many things and I stand to be educated and listen to any opinion but it seems clear that it is the cases of beer in the supermarket that will see the largest increase in price?
Complain about this comment
#82 Online Ed
Online Ed Here
Unionists and the media now reduced to hiding behind the 'It might be illegal' line.
Might be?
Pathetic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pity they didn't give the War in Iraq the same consideration of legalality before jaunting off on another imperial adventure.
The reek of hyporicy from Labour is nauseating.
Complain about this comment
dazzlingpuddock:
#94.
The BBC provides much information that I suggest you Google for, concerning mininum pricing.
The most recent I believe reported on findings, I have copied what those findings claim.
"The majority of large bottles of cheap white cider, which often have a high alcohol content, would see their prices rise, with some more than doubling."
And...
"The vast majority of recognised beer and wine brands favoured by responsible drinkers would see no change in their price."
How did you reach your conclusion?
Complain about this comment
Isn't it one reason why the SNP brought mininum pricing forward as a Health Bill was, well because its brought forward because of health reasons and therefore legally allowed by international rules?
If the opposition seek to claim, "It might be illegal..." then I must ask the opposition (and critics) to prove that it is illegal.
Complain about this comment
Well, the outrage over Labour's politicising of this issue is, I'm glad to see, very widespread.
I suspect that Labour have exposed themselves for what they are with this and that people are gettig a right good keek at them for what they are.
It's not a pretty sight.
Honestly, having watched Labour stoop to gutter level with all their negative campaigning and blatant dishonesty I just feel sick at the sight of them.
I'm sitting here asking myself, what on earth did Scotland do to deserve them?
I have no idea.
Complain about this comment
I reached my conclusion by working out that a case of my favourite re-hydration agent will rise from about a tenner to around £22!
Cheap ciders drunk by problem drinkers will go up in price but these problem drinkers will simply move onto something else as most are addicts!
The hardest hit will be the social at home beer drinkers and even they will not be put off drinking!
Why has what I drink have anything to do with any government in the first place!
Successive governments have somehow been allowed to dictate to us how we live our private lives and control us for "our own good" and as a nation most have become so soft they just accept it!
This so called Alcohol problem has been with us for centuries, none of this is new.
Personal responsibility is what is missing!!
Minimum pricing is just spin and politiking
Complain about this comment
The woods around the small town where I live and, I daresay, many towns in Scotland are littered with empty bottles and cans thrown away by under-age drinkers – responsible drinkers, I would imagine are not in the habit of hiding in woods to imbibe their favourite tipple. This detritus consists solely of the type of cheap drink which would be subject to an increase in minimum price.
I have never in these woods seen any empty bottles of higher priced liquor or even Buckfast!
If Labour were in power in Holyrood (God, forbid) and had seen the medical evidence presented in favour of a minimum price would they have rejected it in the manner they did today? I very much doubt it. This suggests to me they have politicised a minimum price for alcohol for no reason other than it was proposed by the SNP. Labour can’t seem to accept they are no longer in power and haven’t been since 2007.
Congrats, Brian. I see Douglas Fraser is also blogging on the minimum price of alcohol today. He has managed just 3 comments.
How does it feel to be popular?
Complain about this comment
Fancy that -
"Helen Liddell, former Secretary of State for Scotland, even called for the wine to be banned. The then Scottish Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson MSP, suggested that retailers should stop selling said tonic wine."
There we have Scottish labour in a nutshell, duplicitous hypocrites.
Complain about this comment
Any chance of making the FMQ's programme longer ? The Wednesday programme is pretty uneventful and is usually on for more than an hour.
But most times there could be a discussion to be had after FMQ's but it runs out of time.
Complain about this comment
A total ban on the sale of alchohol in glass would also go a long way towards reducing the queues in A&E at the weekend. As far as cutting down on the "outside pub and club violence" give the police and or the courts the power to remove licences from those establishments outside which the incidents occur, this would concentrate the minds of the licencing trade to the nth degree, and the violence would reduce. A points system applied as it is to motorists could be introduced, with the licence gone for a year when the magic No 10 is reached.
Complain about this comment
Darling warns British unemployment will rise!!
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailing/article6933143.ece
Did he tell all thos Labour voters in Glasgow NE......?
Oh I forgot... most of them are unemployed already. .
Complain about this comment
dazzlingpuddock:
#99.
"I reached my conclusion by working out that a case of my favourite re-hydration agent will rise from about a tenner to around £22!"
How do you reach that price? Despite the findings that point out most beers will remain uneffected, you have to be different. If you got the first point wrong, what makes you confident you are right about everything else you say?
"Cheap ciders drunk by problem drinkers will go up in price but these problem drinkers will simply move onto something else as most are addicts!"
Your information is again flawed. If prices rise then addicts will simply go onto the next less expensive thing, but of course being more expensive that person has less to spend and therefore less damage is done to their health in the long-term.
"The hardest hit will be the social at home beer drinkers and even they will not be put off drinking!"
I see no evidence at all to support your ridiculous and childish claim. The responsible drinker will pay an extra tenner annually, compared to the expected well over 100 figure for the worst offenders.
"Why has what I drink have anything to do with any government in the first place!"
Because certain individuals end up in our hospitals and using our resources and spending our tax money.
"This so called Alcohol problem has been with us for centuries, none of this is new."
That makes it alright then? If that was a good argument, why bother caring problems at all since those problems have existed for many years beforehand? Why abolish slavery? Why do anything that might possibly improve our lives because the problems have existed for years beforehand!
"Personal responsibility is what is missing!!
Minimum pricing is just spin and politiking"
You'd have an argument if we didn't already pay taxes each time we purchase alcohol. So whats the difference?
Complain about this comment
kaybraes:
#103.
I'd point out your logic is flawed. Incidents may occur outside certain areas but it only takes one premise to sell alcohol for rock bottom prices and every single premise within walking distance will have a problem.
Have you been on a pub crawl by any chance?
Complain about this comment
#99 Dazzling P
You ask "Why has what I drink have anything to do with any government in the first place!"
Now you might, like me, be the soul of discretion and never get into any bother with booze (well almost never). The fact is that the press is full every week from every airt and pairt of the land regarding booze and the resultant mayhem (they even have TV progs about it) caused by people drinking on empty heads. That and the increasing strain being put on medical and legal resources is why the Govt is getting involved. Minimum Pricing is just a weapon to try and damp down the demand.
I don't want to interfer with your boozing, you carry on, as will I. Meanwhile it's worth reflecting on one of the points Brian made, at one time a bottle of whisky almost cost a week's wages.
Complain about this comment
dazzlingpuddock
No-one has a probelm with stay at home drinkers who as you put it "drink responsibly"
The problem is the culture in Scotland where cheap and strong drink is available to children, the homeless and people who are otherwise incapable of controlling thier addiction
You can exercise your personal responsibility by accepting a hike in price for the pocketmoney drinks and cheap superlagers. Children are sculpted by their upbringing and what they are exposed too - if we nip this culture in the bud with children then when they mature into adults they will have a completely different frame of reference to what acceptable drinking is.
Right now, we have 3 generations of adults who have seen and grown up with a drinking culture that is almost legendary in it's cavalier regard for health and wellbeing. To enact change - we need to make differences - BIG differences to the ways we've done things in the past. Only then will our future generations feel the benefit of OUR social responsibility.
Complain about this comment
@94 "Tell me why my statement is wrong Mr Porter,"
I'm not him, but I'll have a stab. Your statement was that faced with minimum pricing, people would turn to spirits to get drunk rather than beer. There is, however, no rational basis whatsoever for believing this, since with minimum pricing by definition the PER-UNIT price is the same either way. So there's nothing to gain, in terms of getting drunk cheaper, from shifting to spirits. And by-and-large people tend to find beers more palatable than the hard stuff, and you certainly get a lot more volume for your money.
(And of course, if you sit there knocking back vodkas every five minutes instead of taking half-an-hour to drink a pint, you'll pass out a lot faster due to the concentrated effect and have ended up consuming less alcohol anyway...)
Complain about this comment
107 Robabody
Laws already exist to deal with rowdies, they are simply not enforced!
Why not simply ban alcohol altogether if the NHS has become the be all and end all of life in the UK.
Alcohol priced at a minimum of 40p a unit is not going to change our relationship with drink one iota!
From weetin the bairns head to the wake at your funeral most of life's important moments will be spent in the arms of alcohol in some way or another for a majority of Scots and until that changes we can forget it!!
If individuals beat their wives or husbands when drunk then that person is personally responsible not the cheap drink.
Complain about this comment
#99
Alcohol doesn't hydrate, it forces oxgen and water out of your body in the form of urine and sweat, but not before it;s absorbed by all your major organs, the last of which is your liver - which is the only part of your body capable of burning alcohol and producing energy.
If a liver is loaded with one unit of alcohol, it takes 1 hour for your body to move that alcohol to your liver and process it into fuel. Along that hour, the alcohol in it's 2 forms ethanol (which makes you feel relaxed - as it is a pschyoactive agent) and methanol (which will blind you before it kills you) lingers in every capilary throughout your body.
A common trait of alcohol poisoning is the inability to notice which of the two of these compounds holds the greater sway in your body.
Binge drinkers tend to use the saying "avoid hangovers - stay drunk"
the reason this works (at least in the short term) is because ethanol is the agent that burns the easiest in our liver - therefore it bypasses methanol and starts burning alcohol. The methanol is still there - but it's waiting it's turn.
Now apply the logic that while people keep drinking, they fail to notice the effect of methanol accumulating in thier bodies. While they drink constantly, the liver is kept in stock with ethanol, which it rapidly burns through and makes them feel good / sociable etc.
Aside from accumulating a ridiculous amount of methanol (remember: a toxic agent that at 100ml in concentrated form will kill you outright) the drinker will be blissfully unaware of it due to the narcotic and anasthetic effect of the ethanol. When you have a headache it's usually because your brain is starved of oxygen, h20, electrolytes (saline solution) and the nutrients it needs to operate normally.
instead - after drinking 10 pints of super, you will carry the equivelaent dose of methanol in your body, oxidizing in your blood and creating nasty carboxylic acids, enzymes that absorb into your body and can cause man boobs, osteoporosis, diabetes, cancer,
heart disease, strokes and a host of other wonderful diseases.
Thankfully, I'm an educated sort - who likes to read about all manner of substances. If you think for one moment that a child has the notion or intent to studythese very basic facts about alcohol before imbibbing, you are very much mistaking.
Minimum price would put this out of the reach of children until they can better educate themselves on what drink can do to them, rather than for them.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
109
Alcohol is not sold by the unit though!
A case of beer will cost twice that of a bottle of spirits in real life!
I do not think for one second think that all beer drinkers will suddenly switch to hard liquor but hard up, hard working men and women having a social drink on a Saturday night will think about it!
Complain about this comment
@113 "Alcohol is not sold by the unit though!"
What does that have to do with anything? People know how many units are in what, and they also know roughly what their own tolerance is. If the object is purely to get blootered at the lowest possible cost, then a bottle of spirits is already the "best" option, since you can get 26 units of economy-label vodka for little more than a fiver. (By buying really cheap and nasty lager you can get slightly more units for your money, but it's physically a fair bit harder to drink about eight litres of fizzy beer than it is to knock back 0.7 litres of the voddy.)
With minimum pricing there's if anything actually slightly LESS reason to opt for spirits.
Complain about this comment
#113 dazzlingpuddock
So you are worried that you will no longer be able to buy a case of beer for a tenner.
Do you think this policy has you in mind?
Complain about this comment
72. northhighlander
"Why not answer the point?"
A point can't be answered but I did address what I took to be the object of your post which, against all evidence to the contrary, was an attempt to descredit the Scottish Government.
"Frankly I am not interested in going over the Iraq stuff again"
You have that in common with Blair, Brown and a number of others and that, I suppose, is why they've set up the inquiry in such a way that it serves only the guilty.
Here's a tiny snippet from something I wrote a long time ago. It sums up my attitude towards Unionists in general and Labourites in particular.
I can't understand why any Scot would offer allegiance to a political party that, for the preservation of its power in another country, would conduct a campaign of malice and menace against its own.
Complain about this comment
108 111 GA
This law is not being brought in to prevent children from buying drink. That is not what the politicians are saying at any rate!
Upping the age of off sales to 21 would be aimed at that problem surely?
Laws already exist to prevent children buying drink but nobody seems to have the will or determination to do anything about it!
How many licenses have been revoked for selling to underagers or bars closed for selling to the already drunk!
I know well the damages that alcohol does to society through its misuse but 40p a unit is not the answer to our problems but in fact, a dangerous distraction.
For Mr Porter
24 cans of 500mls in size at 5.2% = 2.6 x 24 =62.4 units at 40p a piece=
A couple of coppers away from £25 rather than the current £10.99
Saying beer drinkers are not going to be affected is nonsense!!
Complain about this comment
112#
Someone seems adamant to censor my opinion. How very pathetic.
here it is again folks. One more time... see if you can spot where I made a booboo that hurt mister onionist;
Brian taylor wrote:
Labour lodges further objections.
They say that ministers have failed to produce the formal advice guaranteeing the legality of their plan, despite repeated prompting.
They say further that the government has yet to specify the minimum price which would be levied.
That complaint strikes me as somewhat disingenuous.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian, you think?
This is the future of our countries health and that of our childrens health we're talking about here.
I care not a jot what Labour's objections are!
The debate has raged on for an entire year and now, only now does that utter(ly) Malevolent Oik Reminiscent Of NewLabour Grey decide that Labour want's a commision to look at it!? What the golly were Labour doing for the year this was being planned? They did nothing. They sat and argued. Not debated - they argued. And now, with the SNP securing the support of both the Police and Health Service do Labour realise that doing nothing (which they are experts at) has cost them the initiative to drive the change in this country.
All this is far too much action after the fact. Annabel Goldie does not have a leg to stand on with regards to the whisky trade, as it has already been made plainly clear that Whisky at it's current cost would remain unchanged. This is the worst type of politics there is, the suffocation of a good idea by people afraid to lose the initiative.
It's an absolute disgrace.
Complain about this comment
Labour and Ian Gray appear to be getting all the attention on this issue of minimum pricing, certainly not helped by a poor performance on GMS this morning when he did not appear to realise Scotland does not have tax raising powers as quoted in the interview , however the attention should be turning to both the Tories and LibDems, they appear to have gone away during this debate, what is their view especially the Tories, the party of law and order.
I believe if the Greens vote for the Government in due course on this bill it would pass anyway, what is their position ? and is this correct?
Complain about this comment
38. jimboweb
"I would like one of the highly paid ministers to explain to me why I should pay more to stop an alcoholic drinking, I don't cause trouble or end up in hospital as a result of my drinking."
We're all members of a society. You pay your dues and share the benefits, just like the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
dazzlingpuddock:
#117.
"This law is not being brought in to prevent children from buying drink. That is not what the politicians are saying at any rate!
Upping the age of off sales to 21 would be aimed at that problem surely?"
Children do not purchase alcohol. The chances are that parents, brothers/sisters or friends already the legal age purchase the alcohol for the underagers.
This Bill will not up the age to 21 at off-sales. However there will be the ability to allow certain shops to not legally be allowed to sell to adults aged 18, 19, or 20. This is for problem areas where youths manage to get ahold of alcohol.
"Laws already exist to prevent children buying drink but nobody seems to have the will or determination to do anything about it!
How many licenses have been revoked for selling to underagers or bars closed for selling to the already drunk!"
Isn't that the question you should ask for the police? However this Bill is not concerning Justice, it's being past as a Health Bill...
"I know well the damages that alcohol does to society through its misuse but 40p a unit is not the answer to our problems but in fact, a dangerous distraction."
You've promoted one policy. Individual responsibility, so I see you have no ideas at all but seek to ignore cheap alcohol as one reason our nation has major health problems. 1 in 20 individuals will die because of alcohol, you don't have to abuse it either, you may develop problems over years of simply drinking it.
"24 cans of 500mls in size at 5.2% = 2.6 x 24 =62.4 units at 40p a piece=
A couple of coppers away from £25 rather than the current £10.99
Saying beer drinkers are not going to be affected is nonsense!!"
The findings I have qouted insisted some brands won't be. However I find your position confusing. Your insisting prices won't effect our habit and are arguing over the price of a beer.
Is the price going to put you off slightly?
Complain about this comment
#120 Albamac
here here!
Complain about this comment
#115
If he's buying a case of beer for a tenner - he's buying absolute rubbish that I wouldnt water my weeds with.
If you like chemically altered rubbish, then a tenners fine. If you drink to enjoy then you can do far better for more.
Drink should be the preserve of people who can afford it. People who can't afford to drink should be buying food and clothes first before anything else.
Complain about this comment
#121 Thomas_Porter
#117.
"This law is not being brought in to prevent children from buying drink. That is not what the politicians are saying at any rate!
Upping the age of off sales to 21 would be aimed at that problem surely?"
Children do not purchase alcohol. The chances are that parents, brothers/sisters or friends already the legal age purchase the alcohol for the underagers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm thankful someone can read through the lines without requiring a schematic diagram.
Complain about this comment
GAberdeen,
I don't believe the person understands that this policy tackles cheap alcohol.
However I am too young to remember, but did it not used to be about 20 quid for a case of beer less then a decade ago before supermarkets really started competing on price?
Complain about this comment
21. northhighlander
"The only thing more predicable than the party politicisation of the issue is the content of the posts on here. Greenock Boys posts are particularly over the top even for his notoriously blinkered eyes."
No, the only thing that is more predictable is that you would pop up trying to blame all politicians equally for the unionists inability to justify not backing this.
"The politics of this don't seem that difficult, as Brian says it is common practice for governments to prove the legal basis before bringing forward proposed legislation. Why didn't they publish the advice? Only one reason I can see is to play politics."
Wrong again! It is the opposite - it is not common practice for hte government to share legal opinion. Indeed you will ought to know that wee-wendy's recorded message service from old newsnights; Jackie Baillie herself referred to this in recent debates where she claimed there was a (singular) precedent for sharing legal advice, the implication should be clear to both BT and yourself. But don't let that stop your biased and unsubstantiated pontificating.
On all other aspects of the debate, the unionists keep going on about better enforcement of existing measures, as though the SNP are not - but it is all part of the package. So who is playing politics?
"It seems to me that if the will to make this happen was apparent on both sides then it would have happened. Truth is both lots are more interested in a game of politics which is more important to them than the issue. This is about party politics and not the nations health."
Yes, the will needs to be there on both sides - so if one side won't show the will, why don't you - and criticize the unionist parties for their wrecking tactics for political points.
One side has gathered evidence to back their proposal, gathered the support of relevant public health and order bodies, and consistently made their case on only this basis. The other side has gathered no evidence to back their side (they have no significant new proposals), they ignore the evidence, they ignore the supprot of ploice and health bodies.
Only one side is playing party politics with the nations health - that is self evident.
That you come on here trying to make out otherwise speaks volumes.
"I am not convinced minimum pricing would have made that much real difference, but I support it because it would have started to change the culture by starting the process of making excessive drinking socially unacceptable in much the same way as smoking now is."
So if you support it, and the government have done all they can to gather evidence on it; and that evidence supports it, the health and police bodies support - and the unionist parties oppose it to the point of blocking it: why can you not just come out and criticize the unionist parties for this clear politicisation?
"But as can be seen from the posts here the rhetoric and politics and petty point scoring are more important to most."
Oh yeah. This is why you can't criticize them. You like to come on and pretend your posts are being reasonable about things, but they're not. Your rhetoric are as partisan as the charicatures you paint of others. You claim to want new thinking, but when it appears you won't give credit for it, faint support and no criticism of the parties representing your darling union is what we get instead.
Complain about this comment
40. rolfrae
"The funny things is (and it's not funny ha ha) is that I feel the same way about Labour now as I did then about the Tories. "
You're not alone rolfrae - it's sad, isn't it.
Complain about this comment
Sheffield report analyses effects of minimum pricing for alcohol in Scotland
Complain about this comment
121 No confusion at my end!!
This law will do nothing except hit the hard working, sensible drinker in the pocket.
No problem drinkers are going to stop drinking because a unit costs 40p.
I hear nothing but conflicting supposed benefits of the introduction of this bill but none seem to be taking reality into account!
I will ask again, what is this 40p minimum price per unit supposed to achieve and who do they think will be persuaded to drink less via its introduction?
Complain about this comment
129. dazzlingpuddock
Instead of jumping up and down try reading the report 1 post above no 128!
Complain about this comment
dazzlingpuddock:
#129.
If you bother to read the report in comment #128 you'll see; "Moderate drinkers would be estimated to spend on average about 21p extra per week"
This policy is not suppose to stop problem drinkers, what point are you trying to make?
I will point up to the evidence again, please read it.
Complain about this comment
Glasgow Council temper tantrum
Complain about this comment
45. northhighlander
"Maybe you need give yourself a shake. You need to think back to the smoking ban legislation. A major effort was made to build consensus across party lines. That is what is missing here. Why not publish the legal basis? Why make so little effort if the issue is so important to the SNP? Because they couldn't really give a stuff, it is all about politics."
Maybe you need to get over yourself - 'give yourself a shake' - who are you?
The SNP gather evidence to back their proposals, they gathered the support of police and health bodies, and the support of leaders in these bodies. They have consistently argued their case on this basis alone, for the public-health benefit of the people of Scotland.
How else can they work to acheive consensus? They've got the evidence, they've got the support of the key public bodies concerned, the oppostion have none of the above for their positions. There has clearly been a major effort - the unionist parties have ignored it. You are simply being partisan.
Again, I will point out that your assumption that legal advice is commonly shared is a fallacy.
"40p a unit would make no difference on a Friday / Saturday night."
If you think the point of it is simply to reduce weekend binge drinking, go and read up about it.
"It would however have started the required culture change. A missed opportunity by all but I repeat just petty politics and this will turn off even more voters."
Evidence based policy backed by police and public health bodies as a part of a package of measures from the SNP on one side. On the other side - lets keep doing the same but better / lets set up a comission of our own - without evidence and without support.
The petty politics are from the parties of your wonderful union, not hte SNP in this case.
"Obviously you don't have to live with the effects of teenage drinkers and Buckie. Otherwise you would have a different view. Any measure that won't stop the Buckie problem is flawed."
Buckie and alcopops are an edge case for this - this about public health in the large. The idea that it won't work because it doesn't target buckie is what is flawed.
You've a hard-neck telling others to 'give themselves a shake' !
Complain about this comment
#129 "No problem drinkers are going to stop drinking because a unit costs 40p."
Quite true, If someone is intent on getting drunk they will do, regardless of cost, but what the minimum price is intended to do is curb the initial slide before they become "problem drinkers". No-one deliberately sets out to become an alcoholic, its a consequence of too easy access to the stuff. If people have to stop and think about buying it in quantity they might not throw it down their necks with such abandon and then wake up to find they can't do without it at any price.
That's what the minimum price is intended to achieve and that's why every health professional in the country is in favour of it, and why Mr Gray and his bitter and twisted followers are wrong to put spite before common sense
Complain about this comment
#120 albamac , evening, jimboweb simply shows us the scale of the problem we have,he is an example of the I'm alright jack sod the rest of you clan that is destroying our society with their refusal to think about anyone but themselves. our society will only survive if we can win the battle of minds with the jimbowebs of this world.
Sid
Complain about this comment
130 I have read the Sheffield uni report before and have read it again at your guidance.
To place much weight behind this report you would have to agree to its definitions of Moderate ,Harmful and Hazardous drinkers and the different types of damage that they do to themselves and society in general.
I personally think it is over simplifying the equation to split drinkers up solely on total units drunk over a week.
The report also makes the assumption that hazardous drinkers will be equally affected by changes in price as those in the base sample.
If the Sheffield report is correct then why not go for a 20% reduction at 70p per unit instead of a 5.4% reduction at 40p.
I am not jumping around, just a content little puddock waiting for our Nicola to give good account of herself and Scotland on QT tonight
Complain about this comment
81. kenstor
"a leading supermarket is selling a bottle of vodka for £5.04p. if a £9 bottle would go up to £10.50p, then the £5.04p bottle would go up to around £6 with minimum pricing.
would this really make any difference? would the £1.50p rise on a £9 bottle make any difference? besides, who would get the extra money? the retailers."
We don't currently have the power to tax it, which would put the money into the public purse.
The diffence it makes happens over the population as a whole, it's just like economics - you're right that not everyone will change, but the small differences in behaviour add up in the population.
"scotland has a drink problem? go to eastern europe, particularly russia, and see what the term drink problem really means.
as for the health side, why no minimum pricing on fags.
anyway, this is all pretty rich coming from a country whose most famous product and icon is whisky."
Fair enough - other countries have worse drink problems. Does that mean we don't ry to sort out ours?
"i totally disagree with this legislation, and my opposition is not political, it is that i do not think the state has any right telling business what they can sell their products for.
well, apart from james blunt cds "
Lol - agree about Blunt :)
Remember that some products are deemed by society to be different from most others - that's why you need a licence to sell them, because it's only legal to do so according to rules defined by the state. Otherwise they'd be able to sell it to young kids legally - and they'd do it.
Complain about this comment
134 Caledonian54
Now that does make sense!!
So its potential problem drinkers we are after?
I was worried our Alex and his crew of freedom fighters had picked a bad pie on this one but it is beginning to make sense to me now!!
A lot of fuss about nothing really if it is not going to tackle our current love affair with the demon drink!
Complain about this comment
135. sidthesceptic
"#120 albamac , evening, jimboweb simply shows us the scale of the problem we have,he is an example of the I'm alright jack sod the rest of you clan that is destroying our society with their refusal to think about anyone but themselves. our society will only survive if we can win the battle of minds with the jimbowebs of this world.
Sid"
Well said Sid!
That's exactly the attitude that's holding us back. That's the real fight after all the politics, after independence too.
Complain about this comment
As a functioning alcoholic I have a good job so minimum pricing won't effect me.
If only it had been around when I was a teenager and there was not an abundance of cheap booze then maybe I wouldn't have gotten addicted in the first place! I hope all you people arguing against minimum pricing are willing to donate me a slice of your liver when I need it. Shame on you all. Drunk rant over!!
Complain about this comment
60. nate_oz
Some in the whisky industry are arguing that other countries might adopt minimum pricing if we do, and that this will damage exports, but every man and his dog knows that this is bulls hit. The reason that some whisky producers are against it is that they are also producing cheap booze, hence why they are so vocal against minimum pricing.
I am personally boycotting those against minimum pricing just because they take us for fools. If they could admit the real reason for their opposition, instead of spinning us bulls hit reasons, it wouldn't really bother me.
Complain about this comment
There is so much utter rubbish being offered on this subject it's time to move on to something else. The fact is tha thbecause it isan SNP initiative the Labour party opposes it despite all the evidence being in its favour. Nobody suggests this measure will sovle our alcohol problem. It is only the small first step.
Complain about this comment
im sick of living in this nanny state.for gods sake cant they not leave us alone to make our own choices in life.
Complain about this comment
134. At 9:48pm on 26 Nov 2009, Caledonian54 wrote:
Good comment.
Not only should we be stopping people getting into uncontrolled drinking, but we need to strat educating children when they are young. Not so much "don't do this it's bad", but "this is what will happen if you drink too much".
There were a serious of health adverts showing the effects of drinking amongst teenagers, with the girl throwing up etc.
I'd like to see the same energy put into promoting sensible drinking as was put into anti-smoking. Not many people get into problems after smoking six ciggies, but a few do after six pints.
You will never stop those who wish to continue drinking. But you might get some responsibility among those who have started or yet to start drinking.
There shouldn't be any need for party politics here. MSPs are supposed to be working together for the good of the country.
As to those who say a certain tonic wine is not a problem, you are welcome to view my end terrace garden any Sunday morning. Despite a 9 foot hedge it still attracts a bottle or two, plus empty packets of Nurofen - god knows what they are doing to themselves.
Complain about this comment
Thomas,
If you happily accept paying taxes on items (including alcohol amougst other things) whats the difference with mininum prices for alcohol?
Complain about this comment
Pressed the blooming post button by accident.......
There are different groups of problem drinkers:
hard core alcoholics
functional alcoholics (nice term grownbordon, needed that)
heavy drinkers
"Tonic Wine" Brigade
Teenagers experimenting
Most of us have probably been the experimenting type, part of growing up.
The "Tonic Wine" mob used to do Special Brew when I was a teenager, and they will no doubt change to another.
Heavy drinkers and functioning alcoholics are those who are building up the health problems for later. They are not normally anti-social and come from all walks of life.
Hard core alcoholics are almost certainly at the health problem stage.
But most people who drink tend to behave themselves. But the effort should be made to promote health issues.
As to the idiots who end up in A&E through alcohol - invoice them. OK, not everyone who is in A&E after drinking is trouble, but I'm referring to the idiots (for want of stronger language).
People who are charged for minor drink-related offences should be out cleaning the streets or similar. Nice bright orange jumpsuits as well.
But change will take years. Better to target the younger ones first.
Complain about this comment
# 110 Dazzling P
"Laws already exist to deal with rowdies, they are simply not enforced!" - Correct I agree, shed loads of drunken Herbert’s pass by on Friday and Saturday and I can't get the polis to come out, despite vandalism, urinating and worse.
"Why not simply ban alcohol altogether if the NHS has become the be all and end all of life in the UK" - If alcohol had just been invented it would never get to market given it's effects and one day you'll need that NHS - do you want to be waiting while they deal with drunks and liver transplants?
"Alcohol priced at a minimum of 40p a unit is not going to change our relationship with drink one iota" - hence my point about it should be costing a weeks wage.
Regarding your point re family events, why does alcohol rule at these events? It doesn't in some houses I know
"If individuals beat their wives or husbands when drunk then that person is personally responsible not the cheap drink" - Unfortunately as a taxpayer, I've got to pay to prosecute Mr Punch and mend poor Mrs Punch. Hence wasting money that could be better spent. So up with the price of drink, it'll probably do us both good!
PS. Sorry I didn't respond earlier - I was out for a drink
Complain about this comment
What a marvelous Question Time. Usual polished performance from Nicola Sturgeon. Panel in support of fiscal automomy for Scotland (because there was no demented Scottish unionists on it denying sensible logic) and the Labour Party's appalling and grubby decision to block sensible drink pricing blown completely out of the water.
What a bunch of clowns they are. And the Tories initial period of sensible behaviour in the Scottish Parliament is now no more than a memory.
They will all regret the hamfisted attempt to combat the SNP through the Calman Commission which was designed to fail but not quite so soon. Happily the Tory cooperation with Labour in the Scottish Parliament damages them both and merely underlines that the polarisation in Scottish polics now is between nationalists and a poor quality pan unionist grouping. The LibDems are on the wrong horse and are set for wipe-out. Couldn't happen to a better bunch of people.
The press and media blitz on the SNP is having an effect at the moment. This is short term and will very quickly descend into a spiral of diminishing return.
Complain about this comment
Interesting to hear senior Tory David Davis on QT saying he was in favour of Fiscal Autonomy!
Complain about this comment
#143
The problem is if people don't control themselves and act in a reasonable manner (your choice, as you put it) they impinge on the rights and freedoms. Irresponsible drinking takes money out of all our pockets. In these events the state has a right to intervene. If you don't like living in our "nanny state" you have every right to emigrate. Would Zimbabwe suit you?
Complain about this comment
I'm sure the Government's proposal is made with the best of intentions and it might help a little, though it does seem to have some loopholes.
But is this perhaps a case where there needs to be a UK-wide approach? The way around the supposed legal difficulties - if they exist - is presumably to increase the duty on alcohol, which for the time being is something that only the UK parliament can do. Since there is now talk of a minimum pricing approach in England, maybe the Scottish Government - hopefully this time with all-party support - might usefully open discussions with UK Ministers to see if a way forward can be found. Ideally, the duty would be applied in such a way that it created a minimum price, rather than adding a percentage to everything. That ought to keep the whisky people happy.
40p a unit seems very low. I'd have thought it would need to be 60p or more a unit to make any real impact. That would definitely affect low-cost booze from supermarkets and off-licences, but would it would hardly make any difference in pubs; I can't think of a pub measure of anything alcoholic that costs less than about £1 a unit.
Complain about this comment
#143
"im sick of living in this nanny state.for gods sake cant they not leave us alone to make our own choices in life."
I suppose you'll be sick of the nanny state if you ever turn up at A&E and have to wait for hours to get treatment because of all the drunks that have got there before you. This is a move to try and help the country, might not totally solve the problem but its better than doing nothing like Labour have for the past umpteen years.
Complain about this comment
#149
I think everyone on that panel bar Charlie Falconer supported full independence for the Scottish Parliament.
A good solid performance by Sturgeon who conducted herself magnificently. She recieved a lot of applause after making most of her points. Even hitting back solidly against Melanie Philips quip about Barnett - telling her "We don't want Barnett, we want full independaence so we can make those decisions ourselves!" - to much agreement on the panel and in the audience.
There was a small trap laid by David Davis I feel, where he chipped in at THE VERY END about raising taxation on drink to benefit taxpayers instead of Supermarkets! Sturgeon CLEARY wanted to rebutt that with the obvious "not in our powers or remit" answer but she was cut off by Dimbleby - which I thought was jolly bad form.
I am begining to think more and more that the Unionists will try and blur the line in the publics perception of what is devolved and what isn't. In some pervese way sharing the negative publicity the union gets at Westminster with the Scottish Parliament. It's disingenious to say the least :)
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
The Herald appear to be continuing with the Glasgow NE campaign. Aside from the Gary McKinnon story whixh is the main headline, they are currently twisting the local council spending into another anti-Glasgow story.
They have also very kindly decided to promote a website that forms some sort of campaign for GARL.
The Scotsman however claim that the local council spending is anti-East coast and pro-Glasgow.
Isn't it marvellous how the SNP are apparently anti-everybody meanwhile not a mention of the party who are actually in charge of the economy that is struggling so badly.
Oh, The Herald have decided that Labour's huge blunder over minimum alcohol pricing isn't worthy of mention on their front page.
Complain about this comment
Talking Drink.
From The London Evening Standard:
''The number of teenagers admitted to hospital for alcohol abuse has gone up by 50 per cent since 2000''
Can Labour oppose minimum pricing with this record ?
Wansanshoo
Nationalist& Anti Theist.
Complain about this comment
Good blog, Brian. To those who complain that the minimum pricing will not affect students or alcoholics or those who want to get bluttered at the weekends; you are correct. However, I believe it is not designed to do that. I believe it is designed to make it harder for our children to start on the downward path into drink problems. I also believe that this measure, in itself, will not even solve that problem. What I do believe is that it is a thin edge of the wedge in trying to change this ridiculous culture that we have, in some aspects of our society, that we should all get drunk instead of having a pleasant drink with friends or family.
The smoking ban was only part of a measure that had been going on in our society for years. Prior to that we banned adverts on TV and and in newspapers and magazines etc. The banning was never going to get the people to quit smoking but it was certainly designed to stop tempting the young into smoking. It was never meant to be a quick fix but a long term assualt on the habits of our society that was killing millions of us. Is this working, yes it is, but slowly. Things like this just don't disappear from our society overnight; it may take a couple of generations to have any observable effect. People like me, who smoke, are beyond help but, hopefully, my grandchildren won't pick up the habit. Sadly my grandaughter has.
This is the same with the alcohol problem. This is, hopefully, the start of an assualt on this scourge in our society which, with other measures, will slowly change our habits and save the lives of tens of thousands of our citizens.
Complain about this comment
Talking Drink.
From The Mail Online:
''The number of people drinking themselves to death has soared by 40 per cent under Labour.
Critics blame the relaxing of licensing laws and the availability of cheap drink in supermarkets.
Worryingly the under-40 age group has seen a 24 per cent increase in deaths from alcohol-related causes.
The toll among men in their 20s has risen by a staggering 41 per cent.''
Is this the position Labour wish to defend ?
Wansanshoo.
Nationalist & Anti Theist.
Complain about this comment
Talking Drink.
From The Daily Mail, February 2008.
''LABOUR’S 24-hour drinking has been a complete failure, a Home Office report is set to admit this week.
It has not cut alcohol-related crime nor significantly altered the nation’s drinking patterns, the investigation will conclude.
And the so-called “European-style drinking culture” promised by Ministers has failed to emerge.''
Based on this self admmited failure how can Labour oppose minimum pricing?
Wansanshoo.
Nationalist& Anti Theist.
Complain about this comment
Just shows how much NuLabour MSPs actually WANT to improve Scotland. Just wonder what Dumpty in Westmister told them how to vote, or did Ian Gray manage to think this one up himself - if he did it must be a "First" for him. Is he soon to be replaced by Malawi Jack, I wonder? Maybe they should put an open ad in the National newspapers:
WANTED
New head of NuLabour in Scotland.
No previous experience necessary, just an ability to be able to put both your feet in your mouth at the same time.
Apply to NuLabour, Scottish Parliament, Hollyrood, Edinburgh.
Complain about this comment
148. At 00:13am on 27 Nov 2009, sneckedagain wrote:
"The LibDems are on the wrong horse and are set for wipe-out. Couldn't happen to a better bunch of people."
Wrong horse? They are on the wrong planet!
Complain about this comment
So, what balanced insight did GMS give us on this one
Unholy cackling glee at the policies the SNP are unable to advance to a backdrop of Another One Bitest he Dust from Queen.
Followed by sour grapes from Henry McLeish
Not what my wifepaysour licence feefor
Complain about this comment
Brian do you reckon the Grey man is a Numpty, especially in light of the following articles:
'Minimum price' demand on alcohol.
The availability of cheap alcohol has led to calls for minimum prices in Wales to change the drinking culture.
The three Welsh Labour leadership contenders recently called for tough action against Wales' drinking culture, referring to anecdotal evidence of certain types of alcohol selling at 11p a unit in some areas, and concerns about licensing issues and availability.
Alcohol price plans 'are legal'
The chief medical officer for Scotland has dismissed claims that setting a minimum alcohol price could be illegal.
Dr Harry Burns told BBC Scotland it was "entirely appropriate" that Scottish ministers introduced the measure in a bid to tackle alcohol abuse.
His opposite number in England has also unveiled similar proposals for a minimum price south of the border.
Minimum alcohol prices for Oldham.
Yorkshire Street is the main drinking area in Oldham which had a 200% increase in serious violent incidents in the first four months of this year.
That's a stabbing or an assault with intention to kill on average every Friday and Saturday night.
But the Greater Manchester town has come up with a unique way of fighting back the recent spike in alcohol-related disorder.
The council believes promotions such as 2-4-1s, drink as much as you can for £5.99, and free shots, have fuelled an atmosphere of violence.
Brian will you tell the Gray man to stop playing politics with peoples lives in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
With regards to those who are saying this might affect the whisky export industry. I recently went to Ikea and picked up a case of their pear cider and it worked out as about £1.05 per 500ml can.
It costs £1.56 in Sweden, where the state have a monopoly on its sale.
If minimum pricing is introduced in Scotland and not England, I think we'll see two large Calais-style off-licences being built in Berwick and Sarkbridge, and a rise of activity at the Barras.
Complain about this comment
126. mrbfaethedee
What a load of rubbish. If you click on my name and look at previous posts I will praise the SNP where they get it right, you will find precious little support for Mr Gray. If they kicked the Independence idea into the long grass I would vote for them.
Unlike yourself, where you demonstrate a constant theme that can be paraphrased along the lines of SNP good everything else bad. Remember animal farm? Are you happy being one of the sheep?
My point on this issue is that if the government had wanted this to happen they could have worked harder at securing the votes. This should not be a party political issue.
I fail to see how any reasonable person can come to any conclusion other than this is tawdry politics on both sides. If the legal basis is strong, then why not share it? What possible reason other than party politics could there be?
AS I have said previously I would support this as it would enable culture change. However there are many who don't agree and offer perfectly good arguments against this measure. They come from from many of the professions you claim support this proposal. It is not universally popular nor is it likely to achieve the things some posters claim it would. For example will it make any difference to A&E on a Friday night. No. Reduce domestic violence? Very doubtful.
Minority government is about consensus. If we can't build consensus across the party machine on this issue you must ask why not. To blame it all on the opposition parties shows a lack of objectivity, a lack of understanding. Or alternatively pathetic party politics.
Complain about this comment
Just read the online piece by Robbie Dinwoodie, Chief Scottish Political Correspondent at the Herald. It's a balanced view and does highlight the corner that Labour have pained themselves into. What is interesting is the acknowledgement that Mr Gray's motivation is really a recognition of his own failure at denting Mr salmond's standing and by extension an admission that he is also failing in his leadership.
Most professional opinion is outraged at Labour and this will permeate through society. What an own goal by Gray!
Complain about this comment
156. gedguy2
I agree with your post entirely. The success on tacking smoking has been immense, as you say it was a wide ranging package of measures that continue to work.
I would like to see the two other problem areas in our society Drinking and obesity treated the same way. This needs consensus and should be every single politicians top priority to make this happen.
If you want to stop smoking the NHS will offer magnificent help and have a high success rate. Want to lose weight or stop drinking, not near so much in the way of help.
This would definitely be a spend to save, the savings to the NHS and other government departments in benefits not paid if people keep working, would be huge.
Complain about this comment
Wise words from northighlander. However as regards kicking the independence thing into touch and I'll vote for you - perhaps a referendum on the matter would allow that to happen......
Complain about this comment
Moridura on the opposition to minimum pricing
"Recognise those who are to blame - the amoral opposition coalition in Holyrood. If you voted for any of these parties - Labour, Tory or LibDem, think again at the general election if you value the kind of society you live in - and for your children and your grandchildren's sake.
Vote SNP - vote for life - and for Scotland."
Complain about this comment
At FMQ on Thursday it was easy to for the viewer to see the glee on the faces of some Labour MSPs sitting immediately behind Gray when he was speaking and realise that they are not serious about trying to resolve this serious issue. One Labour MSP was sitting open mouthed, laughing and chortling, almost salivating, at the proceedings. Apart from this hideous sight, are Labour not even aware of the image of gross irresponsibilty they are projecting at the public?
Complain about this comment
168. mrbfaethedee
More open balanced non-party political thinking fae the dee!
Complain about this comment
162. Roll_On_2010
Even the most simple of voters will realise that 2 for 1 offers in pubs would not be affected in any way by even a 70p unit price. In fact a 40p minimum price might encourage minimum price offers in such pubs.
Legislation outlawing such deals is required across the UK.
Complain about this comment
164. northhighlander
"What a load of rubbish. If you click on my name and look at previous posts I will praise the SNP where they get it right, you will find precious little support for Mr Gray. If they kicked the Independence idea into the long grass I would vote for them."
Just because you occasionally voice support for this or that SNP policy, in no way clears you of the charge that whenever the SNP cannot get something through you simply assert it is because they have somehow failed to bring consensus about. The fact is that if one side wants specifically to not engage for political reasons nothing about the policy can bring concensus. Yet you seek to blame the side the tried to tango along with the ones who didn't.
I haven't claimed you support Mr Gray. I have claimed you like to make out that the SNP is playing petty politics with issues where I think the evidence is clear they have played honest politics.
Unlike yourself, where you demonstrate a constant theme that can be paraphrased along the lines of SNP good everything else bad. Remember animal farm? Are you happy being one of the sheep?
Yeah, that's funny - a dewey eyed supporter of the UK state calling me a sheep! lol!
Conastant theme - pot/kettle.
"My point on this issue is that if the government had wanted this to happen they could have worked harder at securing the votes. This should not be a party political issue."
As i pointed out repeatedly, they worked hard by gathering the eidence to back their policy position. They gathered the support of those who ought to know. They took the evidence, support and the need to do more to the other parties all the while. I fail to see what more can be done.
You seem to think you know, so enlighten us all - how could they have secured the support of the opposition parties using mechanisms other than those they have used?
Also, one you explain whatever the extra work you tell me about is, explain to me why the oppostion parties need it, when the policy is backed by evidence and has the support of relevant institutions and the opposition have no plans of their own?
"I fail to see how any reasonable person can come to any conclusion other than this is tawdry politics on both sides. If the legal basis is strong, then why not share it? What possible reason other than party politics could there be?"
I've already pointed out to you that sharing of legal advice does not happen, you seem determined to ignore this. Since this point seems very important to you, i suggest you go and read the recent debates in parliament - you will find Baillie claiming that there had been precedents (the McKie case), and Strugeon claiming they had had no substantiation of that. If Labour were desperate for the SNP to share their legal advice, and with Sturgeon on record as saying they would willingly do so if these precedents could be substantiated; then if Labour were being honest about these precedents they could have trivially provided it and solved their own problem.
"AS I have said previously I would support this as it would enable culture change. However there are many who don't agree and offer perfectly good arguments against this measure. They come from from many of the professions you claim support this proposal. It is not universally popular nor is it likely to achieve the things some posters claim it would. For example will it make any difference to A&E on a Friday night. No. Reduce domestic violence? Very doubtful."
I did not claim that all doctors, all nurses, all police support it.
Many do. More importantly the bodies and leaders within the organisations unequivocally do!.
Only a fool would claim universal popularity for anything, I did not.
I did not claim it'll sort out weekend A&E ( in fact if you read muy posts on this thread you'd have known that), or domestic violence.
Conflating my statements and the opinions of everyone else on the thread that you disagree with may seem a cunning strategy to you, but it is facile and obvious.
"Minority government is about consensus. If we can't build consensus across the party machine on this issue you must ask why not. To blame it all on the opposition parties shows a lack of objectivity, a lack of understanding. Or alternatively pathetic party politics."
Only if you naively believe (or cynically pretend to) that the opposition parties wouldn't stoop to just wrecking tactics. In which case your position as apologist for them paints you in a wonderful light.
If consensus can not be built by showing evidence to back your policies (without answer) and gaining the support of relevant bodies outwith government and in the domain in question, how else is it built?
Complain about this comment
Did anyone read of the arrest of a chap who remonstrated with Mr Purcell?
No charges were brought in the end , but beware remonstrating with your political masters in Glasgow , you'll end up in clink!
Complain about this comment
I see the postman has been really helpful to the McKinnons.
Complain about this comment
A 6% increase in the Scottish prison population is announced.No doubt drink was a factor in a fair amount of cases that made up that increase.That's the backdrop to Labour's refusal to play ball on minimum pricing.
On a different matter,UKIP are to announce their new leader this afternoon.Who cares north of the border?Doesn't English politics seem increasingly foreign and less and less relevant to Scotland's needs.
Complain about this comment
To 'Scottish' Labour: SHAME SHAME SHAME.
All Health professionals in Scotland & the Police support minimum pricing.
All those with vested interest in the drinks industry, including 'Scottish' Labour's own shadow health minister, who has conections to the whisky industy, are against it.
Does that tell you anything? Which one of these groups is actually more concerned about our health & wellbeing, and which is more concenred about profit?
I'll leave that to you to decide.
Complain about this comment
170. northhighlander
"More open balanced non-party political thinking fae the dee!"
If you think it worthy of a jibe that i recommend that people vote in favour of a party which is actively seeking to effect positive change for the health and well-being of the people of Scotland instead of the unionist parties who are united in standing against the such proposals while offering nothing themselves; knock yourself out big-man.
Complain about this comment
morning
#176 the blaec_duglas It tells most free thinking people that Labour have lost the plot. everyone except the numpties in the BBC especially those who work on GMS. this morning's wee ditty was pathetic.
#177 Northhighlander might just of hit on something here.
all we need to do is change the last 3 letters .
"MORE OPEN BALANCED THINKING FAE THE BBC"
they could put that on every bit of there political output .
Sid
Complain about this comment
Can I just point out here one fact that Brian 'forgot' to mention?
Dr Simpson, the so called medical expert writing in today's Scotsman to support Labour's stance, IS HIMSELF A LABOUR MSP!
Complain about this comment
Put simply this should not be a political matter.
Independent analysis and professional opinion conclude that Minimum Pricing is the most effective way of reducing alcohol consumption.
Reducing alcohol consumption - reduces deaths and serious health issues.
That conclusion, from the people best placed to judge, frankly outweighs all the wee anecdotal arguments above - that "it won't help this", "it won't stop that"
Who cares!
I say again
Independent analysis and professional opinion believe that Minimum Pricing is the most effective way of reducing alcohol consumption.
Reducing alcohol consumption, reduces deaths and serious health issues.
Stop the politics of self interest and get it done.
Then follow it up with further measures - and slowly we may see Scotland get off the bottom of just about every health related league table out there.
Putting politics ahead of the people's health is, quite frankly, disgusting.
Complain about this comment
What did Nero do when Rome burned?...........eh FIDDLED! Seems to be an operative word when it comes to our captains of politics with various meanings. Looks like the good ole' drink lobby or whatever pressed on that sensitive place....I'm guessing a few will not run short @ Xmas / New Year...allegedly that is!
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
The 'Hens teeth' award will go to anyone who hears Glenn Campbell say:
"There was outrage across Scotland at the decision to extradite Autism sufferer Gary McKinnon to the United States."
Had to laugh at the Daily Record at their desperate attepmts at saving Labour's face over the minimum pricing blunder. Apparently Nicola Sturgeon and Scotland's Chief Medical Officer launched the campaign against alcohol abuse in an Edinburgh wine bar.
This, according to the record was an "embarassing gaffe" - the reason being that the wine bar runs a half price weekly promotion.
The Record of course completely failed to notice Iain Gray's very real gaffe when he criticised the Scottish Government for not using tax powers ........... that they don't even have.
Little or no support for Labour on this aside for The Record and a handfull of die hard Unionists posting comments.
Robbie Dinwoodie as usual writes an excellent analysis of why they did it and the blind alley that they are now up. Iain Gray made a mistake when he promoted Jackie Bailie, she didn't add much to Wendy's term as leader of Holyrood Labour MSP's and it looks like her touch hasn't deserted her.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
173. At 11:16am on 27 Nov 2009, Diabloandco wrote:
Did anyone read of the arrest of a chap who remonstrated with Mr Purcell?
No charges were brought in the end , but beware remonstrating with your political masters in Glasgow , you'll end up in clink!
No, any details or links?
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
172. At 11:13am on 27 Nov 2009, mrbfaethedee
You have entered the nebula of the disinformation troll, one of the many symptoms is very lengthy and time consuming responses.
I tend to ignore such posters.
Complain about this comment
#180 dear_wendy
well said, am in full agreement with your post
Complain about this comment
From The Home Office Web Site.
The links between alcohol and violence are well established. But we are determined to rid our streets of this growing problem.
Facts & figures:
In nearly half (45%) of all violent incidents, victims believed offenders to be under the influence of alcohol
this figure rose to 58% in cases of attacks by people they did not know
37% of domestic violence cases involve alcohol
in nearly a million violent attacks in 2007-08, the aggressors were believed to be drunk.
Can anyone tell me which part of this does the Grayman not understand?
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure minimum pricing will work on it's own, possibly with a raft of other initiatives it might be effective.
As to doctors and police supporting the policy? Just because both are fully qualified to talk about the effects of alcohol abuse doesn't mean they are qualified to offer an opinion on the social or cultural aspects of it, which is really where we need to look.
A doctor can tell you exactly what happens to a person's liver or brain chemistry while under the influence, he or she may not be so able to diagnose the social problems; disatisfaction, unemployment, work related stress, poverty, social and political ennui and plain old cynicism rife in Scotland (and the UK's) culture etc etc etc.
I want independance for Scotland, but I don't want it with the SNP's nanny-state strings attached, alcohol pricing (how about the police doing their job and providing decent deterent or proper education and youth services, get them on side while they're young.) Air guns, (these are not fire arms, it's a term used to scare monger) laws exist that are adequate, the Police need to have their hands properly untied so they can enact them.
The SNP are as bad as Labour when it comes to these problems, just ban it, legislate against it, limit the people's ability to decide for themselves. Bad things happen everyday, this is what is known as 'life' - you can't legislate against that.
We need to move to a culture of educated reason, considered reaction. Laws that are passed on the back of Newspaper campaigns are more often than not; never good.
What would I do? Reduce the number of licenced grocers, perhaps in business rates, add in a premium for city centre licensed premises, provide more youth services (and yes) increase prices, educate more and police more stringently including increasing penalties for drunken behaviour, charge for A&E medical care if drink is a factor & City centre drunk tanks.
Complain about this comment
172. mrbfaethedee
Please note, I am not absolving the opposition of blame here as you try to insinuate. I am pointing out that the posters on here seem oblivious to the other side of the coin.
All the crap about precedent. How is a precedent created? Would this not have been an opportunity to share advice on the basis that this would have got the policy through? Why not? What to hide? Why not be seen to completely cut the legs from the opposition?
When looked at from that perspective it is easy to come to the conclusion that this is just tedious party politics. Remember only one opposition party needed to support this, why would not one single party support the government on a fairly non-contentious issue? Isn't that a little strange? They all want to wreck the SNP bill? All of them want to be seen by the electorate as wreckers?
Objectivity requires one to look at both sides of the argument, not rant and foam like some of the more base elements here.
Complain about this comment
184. U14094468
"You have entered the nebula of the disinformation troll, one of the many symptoms is very lengthy and time consuming responses.
I tend to ignore such posters."
I may join you.
Complain about this comment
#179. The_Blaec_Duglas wrote:
"Can I just point out here one fact that Brian 'forgot' to mention?
Dr Simpson, the so called medical expert writing in today's Scotsman to support Labour's stance, IS HIMSELF A LABOUR MSP!"
Yes, he has been converted on the road to Damascus by Labour's spin machine, as he was initially in support of this policy. He has now succumbed to moral turpitude and is looking at the bigger picture, viz., wreaking damage on the SNP and rejecting the needs of Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Well, well – Brian’s Big Debate and no members of the public permitted.
Result, Unionist loaded atack on the SNP.
Interestingly most texts or calls against minimum pricing.
Can anyone confirm if this was a long term plan or was it decided at short notice.
Complain about this comment
I agree with the minimum pricing but I think a better deterrent would be to increase the fines on public drunkenness and to charge anyone who is treated in A&E who is under the influence of alcohol the full cost of their treatment.
Complain about this comment
Minimum pricing might not work, but there is not point in shooting it down before it is tried.
If it fails to make a significant impact, so be it. But let them try the policy and see what happens.
But the matter is about to be superceded by a renewed attack on Fiona Hyslop.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8382530.stm
But she appears to be blaming the councils, not a good idea following the recent criticism of her plan for early retirement for teachers. I think she's in for a rough ride.
Complain about this comment
Some of the letters here are comical,it seems there is a wee bit of snobbishness amongst our alcholics. It seems the Jaikies who drink buckfast and cheap cider are worse than the ones who go out and get off their faces on expensive tipple in some posh establishment. The fact they aren't lying behind the nearest wall sucking on a bottle of cheap wine doesn't make them any better, they just seem to have more cash to sluice down the drain.
Complain about this comment
Labour's final run out of all credability, South of border they appear to be moving in favour, north they are agi it.
Having run out of any coherent policies of their own Slabour decided to trawl through th socialist library of political strategy and all the could come up with was Chairman Mao's Little Red Book where the Great Helmsman summed it all up by urging his slaish follers to "Oppose what the enemy supports and support what the enemy opposes"
Great democratic political thinking... not!
Complain about this comment
Did anyone watch Bernard Ponsonby on the darkside last night. Worth a little look on their version of iplayer. Good debate on Calman.
Complain about this comment
The saddest aspect for me is that Ian Gray is ditching the consensus politics which made an unexpected success of the hung Holyrood Parliament.
The Government is not proposing minimum pricing because it is a populist vote-winner for the SNP; its purpose is to address a long standing and particulary Scottish problem. The shocking reality of this problem is accepted; of all the measures suggested to deal with it, minimum pricing has the greatest promise of success, verified by independant research.
The Torys object, because they represent commercial interests. The Liberals object, because they emphasise freedom of individuals. Fair enough, points made and noted. But why do Labour object, as a party policy? An why now?
The answer appears to be that they don't want to be seen to be playing second fiddle to the SNP. They think there is political advantage in blocking: better to do nothing than pass an SNP proposal. Wreck the consensus,'cos its making the SNP look good. Better to let the suffering go on for a few more generations, till Labour get back in - we'll do something about it then, we promise. And when we do it'll be a LABOUR policy, that's what matters.
Complain about this comment
182 ONLINE ED: Do you have alike for the Robin Dinwoodie piece? I can't find it on The Herald site.
Complain about this comment
Re my 198 Should read "do you have a link"
Complain about this comment
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/11/27/charges-dropped-for-man-who-shouted-homophobic-abuse-at-gay-council-leader/
For you online!
The chap apparently asked Mr Purcell,why he was intent on ruining his childs education and observing the councillors lack of children while dong so!
Complain about this comment
# 197 DavidE
Agreed - Labour were not big enough on the day and as I saw on the TV in their reactions, they are too wee to be members of a parish council. I wouldn't trust them to take the right decision on cutting the grass!
Complain about this comment
Brian , can you tell me where all the MSPs were for last nights QT?
I am at a loss to understand why Scotland was treated to an opinionated Daily Mail writer, a quite funny comedian, Lord Whatsisface and the very personable , but irrelevant to Scottish debate as shown by his lack of understanding of boozy taxation, David Davis.
I was miffed that Dimbleby did not allow a response from the only active political Scot on the show ,while allowing the chap who asked the question to respond to what he'd heard( no harm to the chap , he made excellent points)
Complain about this comment
#187
That is the point. It is part of a raft of numerous other initiatives.
In order to retain any credibility on this issue the opposition in the Scottish Parliament have to persuade a significant number of sloppy thinkers that this is the only measure the SNP is talking about.
Sadly for them however the people who really know the score - health workers, doctors, mental health experts and the police know exactly that this on only a part of a jigsaw to start a long journey away from alcohol and Labour have just lost another percentage or two of its core support by their crassness.
43,000 people did not stay away from the polls in Glasgow North East for no reason.
Complain about this comment
197. DavidEdinburgh
"The answer appears to be that they don't want to be seen to be playing second fiddle to the SNP."
I think you're spot on.
They want to keep acting like they are the ones in government (the other parties can't really accept that it's the SNP who are the minority govt either).
They won't countenance the national conversation, they'll have calman. They won't have the SNP's minimum pricing, they'll set up their own commission. It's just the presentation of themselves as the real governers of Scotland, regardless of the eloctorate.
Complain about this comment
The Aberdeen Press and Journal makes some interesting points.....
"Politicians must tackle why young people grow up in drink-sodden families and communities. Excessive drinking and antisocial behaviour must be made socially unacceptable, but this requires police, councils, courts, bars and public to change as well and adopt a zero-tolerance attitude to alcohol abuse and poor behaviour – not wait for trouble to happen."
I believe the reasons are easy to understand and are the same for the poor levels of educational attainment in these communities.
It's all to do with aspiration and demand. If the jobs existed to provide real opportunities for our youngsters then they would have something to aspire to and are far less likeley to fail at school or turn to drink or indeed drugs.
The fault therefore lies firmly with central Govt for not having a proper industrial strategy and with the banks and others in the financial services sector for having turned to financial engineering for their income instead of supporting real industry.
The situation is therefore unlikely to change until the Govt gets a real grip on the City....
Complain about this comment
# 192
I am sure that if the SNP was able to get its current fairly mild measures to control alcohol consumption through Parliamen we would see a progression of other measures brought in at appropriate times to further cut down abuse. I have held alcohol licences in a social club, a pub, a licenced hotel and a licenced grocers and I know exactly where the biggest part of the problem has come from.
But let us step back a bit. Alcohol has been a historic Scottish problem (shared with a number of other North European countries). So to deal with that our great and good were somehow persuaded that making it available round the clock in pubs, clubs and hotels and available at cheaper prices from supermarkets was some kind of solution!!!!!
Idiocy then and we see the results now. Must have been brewers and distillers whocame up with that idea.
First point. The police would very much like most drinking back in well managed pubs. This is a controlled enveironment in which the police operaste readily and efficiently. This environment is being steadily destroyed as the brewersin particular are ablew to flood vast lakes of strong alcohol out at very low prices to supermarkets (who very often use it a loss leaders)while they (the brewers) retail virtually the same beer and lager in kegs to pubs at 300 and even 400% of the price of the canned supermarket bevvy.
The key here is that supermarkets don't have to make a profit on lots of their alcohol. Licenced grocers do and in competing with supermarkets they are now going out of business. .
You take the supermarkets out of the equation and a number of things immediately happen. The price of cheap alcohol starts to rise to a lvel that can support licenced grocers. Pub off licences ,who have no interest in selling punters drink at substantially lower than they can get over the bar, re-enter the equation.
And brewers have to find other ways to off load vast lakes of alcohol.
They can't so they will have to produce less at higher margins to retain their profits.
All alcohol is of course cheap. The actual contents of a bottle of premium whisky costs only a few pence.
Is how it is dressed up that adds the price and government taxes which make up the majority of the price. The government,which rakes a fortune off cheap alcohol is the final piece in the jigsaw. Does Westminster, raking in multi millions in excise duty and tax, have the will to stop alcohol abuse?
Then there is the ridiculous hours tha pubs are now open. Up to 100 hours a week and making virtually nothing for most of those hours. That's a whole other question. I could go on - and probaly will a little later.
But first step - take alcohol out of supermarkets (and neighbourhood stores)
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Dinwoodie Article
Complain about this comment
Online Ed here
200. At 3:52pm on 27 Nov 2009, Diabloandco wrote:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/11/27/charges-dropped-for-man-who-shouted-homophobic-abuse-at-gay-council-leader/
For you online!
The chap apparently asked Mr Purcell,why he was intent on ruining his childs education and observing the councillors lack of children while dong so!
The guy had a good point but spoiled it a bit by referring to Purcell's lifestyle. Jailing him though was way over the top and does Purcell no favours at all - politicians should be able to take brikbats from members of the public.
Using the law of 'hate crime' was also ridiculous.
No wonder Purcell dropped the charges, wouldn't have helped his image for him to have basically demanded that the fellow be jailed for what are no more than an inappropriate comment and criticism of Purcell's policies.
Interesting to see if Purcell agrees with Jim Murphy that Conservatives are "hated" in Scotland.
Political persuasion, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc - discrimination is abhorrent no matter what.
Also, perhaps Purcell might care to reflect on his own comments that the SNP are anti-Glasgow, as serious a charge as any of discrimination.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
I see that the text adjacent to the Democracy Now link has been clumsily altered. It used to quote Salmond's 'Labour shame' over their minimum pricing decision.
You can still see the join, here's what it says now:
Labour's 'to oppose alcohol pricing'
I'm sure it used to be something along the lines of Labour's day of shame.
Just goes to show manipulative some are at the BBC - and not very good at covering their tracks.
Complain about this comment
207Online Ed: Thank you. Interesting comments.
Complain about this comment
700 jobs go in Scotland as off-licences close. If 24 cans of lager sold for £24.96 instead of £10.95 how many of those jobs would be still standing.
Support Labour, it's good for your job.
Complain about this comment
Interesting blog. I'm extremely disappointed but not surprised by Labour's inexplicable stance on this issue. It looks very bad, and I don't find their explanations convincing, there is no plausible deniability involved in this round of points scoring. Absolutely disgraceful.
Complain about this comment
Nick Robinson has a good blog up.
I think his poking fun at the notion of independence, with his questions about passports and affected flags, hasn't worked. His English bloggers seem relaxed about Scotland ending the union and going back to its default - independent. So far I haven't seen them post on any apparent disadvantages....
So, it's only those at Westminster, interested in retaining their own power through the Union, that are afraid if it (independence) south of the border.
It's an interesting read.
Complain about this comment
189. mrbfaethedee
Much easier than answering the questions. When you run out of ideas, can't answer the questions just resort to a personal insult. How to build a new Scotland eh?
Complain about this comment
213. vere_scribo
Nick's blog was open for comments for under 4 hours. Interesting...
Complain about this comment
202.
We commented on that in our house, I know people say the LDs are an irrelevence in Scotland, but surely they'd be better on QT than a Tory and the Daily Mail?
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile up in Beauly...
Just reading our weekly paper The Highland News.
Mary Scanlon, MSP and Conservative shadow health spokeswoman features in two articles.
Page 10 "Where police priorities should lie" finds Mary moaning about the 349 fixed penalties for drunkeness issued by Northern Contabulary for 2008-09. Nearly a third of Scotland's total. Valuable police time is spent on this matter that could better be used on other matters, according to Mary.
Page 13 "MSP blasts lobbying health boss" where Mary lays into the Chairman of Highland Health Board for sending a letter to every Highlands and Islands MSP asking them to support the Scottish governments plan for minimum alcohol prices. The chairman told Mrs Scanlon the cost of excessive alcohol consumption could be measured "in long term ill-health, social disturbance and provision of police."
Mary is concerned that he is campaigning on behalf of the Scottish Government. The Chairman refused to apologise for his actions, stating that NHS Highland had been invited some time ago to give it's views on a variety of of proposals to tackle Scotland's "appalling health record" because of excessive alcohol consumption. He feels it is no more a party political issue than other public-health policy initiatives such as the ban on smoking in public places.
Now there has been a lot of flack directed at Labour on this issue, but if this demonstrates the quality of the opposition and sheer stupidity and selfiness of Unionist politicians, then I don't know what does.
Complain about this comment
I've just had a promo leaflet from the local store through the box. 20 grocery items, 23 booze on special offer. No we don't have a problem, we can't hear you, la la la ... The SNP have got it wrong, they're not putting Scotland first on this. Let's all go to hell on a handcart and let the NHS take the strain while the booze merchants take their profits in Holland so they don't even have to pay for the costs of their profits.
Complain about this comment
Brien
Time for you to ask a few more of your famous "tough questions"
This time you could ask Nick Robinson the following,
Why close the comments? was he not getting the comments he thought his interview from the colonies deserved.
When was the last time he had to use a passport to visit Dublin? Was it beyond the intelligence of a BBC "journalist" to spot the similarities.
Why no probing of the feeble answer from Murphy on why no referendum. Far too happy to accept Murphys spin and soundbite. I thought Robinson was a journalist.
Why was he here at all, I thought that you were the North British political editor.
Complain about this comment
206. At 4:39pm on 27 Nov 2009, sneckedagain wrote:
Fully in agreement with taking alcohol out of supermarkets and local stores.
But unfortunately that isn't going to happen. One well known supermarket chain can get planning laws changed in it's favour, so I doubt if alcohol will be removed.
Local stores can only really be targetted if there is a definite link to anti-social behaviour or they are caught selling to minors, and that aspect where I live at least is constantly checked.
217. At 6:33pm on 27 Nov 2009, Blind_Captain wrote:
Perhaps someone to point out to the good politician that fixed penalties might help someone think about their behaviour next time they have a tipple. Alcohol is a major factor in violent crime. Better to sort them out at the minor level before it escalates.
Complain about this comment
214. northhighlander
"Much easier than answering the questions. When you run out of ideas, can't answer the questions just resort to a personal insult. How to build a new Scotland eh?
"
Either that or the questions have been answered time after time, which you continue to ignore.
Complain about this comment
#217 Blind_captain
That is disgraceful! When Salmond criticises a local authority (Like he did with Glasgow yesterday - for spending it's allocation on teacher salaries on other things, contrary to the budgetary agreement) he doesn't state that they did it because they are Labour led authorities - he left that part out because to go down that road is petty, pointless and would make him look like he was picking a political fight and not airing a genuine greivance.
Will the unionists please cease and desist with these evil little schemes? It's utterly disgraceful behaviour to see from elected politicians.
Complain about this comment
For any nationalist still holding a candle for Iain MacWhirter take a look at his latest offering in the Guardian. He was reasonably fair to the SNP at times in the past but only in comparison to the rest of the print journalists in Scotland.
His anger with Labour was always more rooted in disappointment with their ineptitude than any sympathy for independence. He was a fervent cheerleader for Global long after everyone else had worked out that he appeared to be completely hatstand.
Now he's trying to talk up the shambles that is Calman.
As for Labour's pre-emptive block on minimum pricing, which has left them no room for manoeuvre, it's depressingly predictable but hard to put it down to anything more sophisticated than spite mingled with stupidity. They act as if they're in the local council instead of MSP's in the Scottish Parliament.
The inane verbal contortions of unionist observers who disagree with Labour's stance but must try and support it anyway are equally predictable. How nice to see the old unionist tactic of blaming all sides for Labour's failings getting its monthly outing. (Nicely dealt with by mrbfaethedee)
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Comment 223. GrassyKnollington
Poor by MacWhirter's recent standards, trying to dress up the unworkable tax proposals as a radical way forward is bizarre from a journalist of his standing.
The tax powers/borrowing are a disaster - we can only sigh with relief that Labour won't get the chance to implement them. What the tories will come up with heaven alone knows.
Scotland is in big danger from Unionists, they are blinded by a hatred of the SNP and their panic is compelling them to make rash decisions.
I still haven't quite worked out the logic of Labour's minimum price decision other than they simply didn't want it to go ahead in case it was a success.
Complain about this comment
Response to Nick the….. Robinson's Newslog
Aberdeen: This member of the Scottish public DOES want it. I look forward to this historic document that will spell out plans TO ALLOW ME A SAY in the future of my country. I want independence.
Thank insert your deity/expletive here there IS still a politician that keeps his promises wherever possible. Alex will get my vote FOR independence.
The thought of my country, Scotland, rotting under another term of a "British" conservative government with no mandate to rule my country, Scotland, is utterly intolerable.
The thought of my country, Scotland, rotting under another term of a "British" labour government is equally utterly intolerable.
The probability that the BNP or their watered-down cousin UKIP will end up with seats in the next British government is abhorrent to my sensibilities. I want no part of it.
I don't think the SNP will need any coalition with the LDs (what pathetic narrow-minded little people they are) because they will have a majority in Holyrood. THEY will be given a mandate to rule my country, Scotland.
Alex is quite right, independence will not be a "magic bullet" which will solve all of Scotland's problems. Independence will mean hard work for all of Scotland. We have a country to rebuild.
Scotland's real, everyday problems will be tackled better if the Scottish Parliament had independence
Not Calman's smoke and mirror report, not devolution-max(yeah, max-imum control from westmonster), and what the insert your expletive here is independence-lite?!! - Scotland can be a proper country, but westminster will keep the purse-strings?
No, I'm sorry, but I'll have the full-fat independence, the kind that comes with running my own country, with it's own economy, with it's own Parliament that can do it's own taxing and spending, at my behest as a voting citizen of Scotland. An INDEPENDENT Scotland that controls it's own defence, it's own foreign policy and it's own political and social outlook.
Alex Salmond, who I don't particularly like but can respect, will get my vote for a referendum, Scotland will get my vote for independence. History, I believe, is on our side.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
For me personally, I am livid that you pre-judge what the Scottish public want. We haven't YET had our say. I am sick of this sort of propaganda from the BBC, telling us what the Scottish public wants or doesn't want, what the Scottish public thinks or doesn't think. It is now so blatantly obvious that you are trying to support the establishment that does not want Scotland to have independence. No wonder you closed the comments so swiftly, I think you saw the tsunami that was about to engulf you and your "journalism".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the comments:
1.StrictlyPickled - We'd have to take him back, unfortunately he's one of ours - no saying where we'd keep him of course ;)
5.obangobang - I do hope you'd not rebuild Hadrian's wall, I'd like to remain friends with my English cousins, it's westminster and the establishment cabal I have a problem with.
6.Ian_the_chopper - hehe
7.xTunbridge - yes, very interesting
11.sircomespect - It is the right thing to do, and I wish you well in getting English independence in due course. Once we're gone it should be easy for you then. Between us we can rebuild this island.
19.bmc875 - exactly, polls can be made to say anything you want. They're for the guidance of sheep.
20.bmc875 - Nick is obviously part of the same family establishment as Brian, so yes, I guess you could say they were related.
Complain about this comment
Re 225.
Interesting that Nick's blog closed just after I left 2 posts! Hope I did not offend him - No! Really, Really - HONEST!
At least Brian stands his corner.
Complain about this comment
I frequently criticize Mr. Taylor for his bias, and I still believe he shows a substantial bias. However, I have to give him this.
He doesn't close the comments in 20 minutes when he doesn't get the answer he wants.
Does Mr. Robinson REALLY think people don't notice. I assure you that this American does. Most of BBC has turned into nothing but a propaganda tool. I keep wondering if it always was and I just was too blind to see it in an organization I once had respect for.
Complain about this comment
214. northhighlander
"Much easier than answering the questions. When you run out of ideas, can't answer the questions just resort to a personal insult. How to build a new Scotland eh?"
What personal insult?
I've answered all your points, and i've asked you to respond. You haven't, yet, but I'm still hopeful -
The SNP had their options researched, found an option well supported by that independent research. On the back of that and other research, the public bodies pertinent to this in policing and health unequivocally support it. From this position, the SNP have promoted it to the other parties. They refuse to accept it, despite the fact that it is well support by research and by the bodies concerned with it, they offer no new alternatives.
You insist that the SNP are as one with the other parties in playing party politics with this - how?
You assert that the SNP could have 'worked harder' for consenus - how?
Complain about this comment
223. GrassyKnollington
"As for Labour's pre-emptive block on minimum pricing, which has left them no room for manoeuvre, it's depressingly predictable but hard to put it down to anything more sophisticated than spite mingled with stupidity. They act as if they're in the local council instead of MSP's in the Scottish Parliament."
You're not wrong there!
I wonder if this has the potential to clear the scales from some Labour supporters eyes, and let them see where their party has sunk to. Too much to hope for?
The tories and libdems are in the same boat, but people still remember an old Labour party that had some principles.
This story's fading now though, Neil_Small147 seems to have been quick to pick up where the beeb are moving the goals to now; somebody's got to take the heat off Labour after all.
Complain about this comment
bmc875 and JRMacClure @ 226 and 227 respectively -
agreed - it's a feature of Brian Taylor's blog not to be taken for granted.
Complain about this comment
All research around the world and I mean ALL, shows that there are only 2 ways to tackle problem drinking, PRICE and AVAILABILITY.
Minimum pricing is a tool to address the first, The second, availability, is actually harder. For my part I think one of the big problems is availablity especially in Supermarkets, I have watched over the years as my local supermarket gives over more and more of its floor space to Alcohol. Clearly Alcohol is playing a bigger and bigger part of there turnover, yet they do not have the same control as Off Licences, such as secure areas for staff so thay feel safe if they have to challenge anyone. Often it is obvious that Supermarkets are using Alcohol as a loss leader, stop and think about that? your local supermarket is selling booze at under cost to entice you into buy other things, remember these Supermarkets are no mugs they will have researched and evidenced this to the last degree, they know exactly what they are doing, increasing availability and consumption of alcohol to increase their profits. I think Alcohol should only be available from dedicated premises, premises whose only item for sale is alcohol.
Complain about this comment
Des Browne to stand down for Westminster.
SNP Tactical Voting thread is worth a look.
http://www.snptacticalvoting.com/2009/11/des-browne-to-step-down-at-general.html
Could this be the start of a process of Labour MPs reckoning that even if Labour scrape back into power at Westminster next year, the tone of English opinion means that no MP from a Scots constituency will have any continuing future in the Cabinet?
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Labour evolving in reverse [is there a word for it?] - back to their old tactics of demanding sackings.
Fiona Hyslop is flavour of the month due to the falling teacher numbers. Strange that Labour don't call for the sacking of those council leaders that refuse to employ teachers.
Complain about this comment
233. U14094468
"Fiona Hyslop is flavour of the month due to the falling teacher numbers. Strange that Labour don't call for the sacking of those council leaders that refuse to employ teachers."
True, but the fact is that concordat relies on the unremitting good faith and diligence of all the local councils in fulfilling their side, and that leaves many government policies as hostages to fortune.
The SNP surely knew this when they set it up, bold. They should just stay bold and ignore Gray and his motley crew, and ignore the media too (and the tories too with their worn-out 'hapless' hyslop line - zzzzz).
Complain about this comment
229. At 10:35pm on 27 Nov 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:
Erm excuse me, but if Online Ed had raised comment about Fiona Hyslop, would you have made the same implication?
Perhaps you could read my comments on this current blog topic - in not a single one have I praised Labour, quite the opposite in fact.
The story with Fiona Hyslop is going to be the next headline for Labour to attack the SNP, hence the reason for pointing it out. The main target is Glasgow, since they've spent their money on other areas (something that is surprisingly common around UK councils). So Labour will hit back since Glasgow City Council is Labour controlled. The media will likely pick this up and turn it into a "the-SNP-are-anti-Glasgow" rant, rather than focus on the truth of the matter.
But please, stop insinuating that somehow I've raised this point to protect Labour. If that was the case, then it's a stupid way of going about it when it is Labour that are spending money wrongly.
Complain about this comment
The opposite of evolution is........
devolution!
Complain about this comment
236. Neil_Small147
"The opposite of evolution is........
devolution!"
Resulting in Independence as a new species in the modern world.
Complain about this comment
235. Neil_Small147
I said -
"Neil_Small147 seems to have been quick to pick up where the beeb are moving the goals to now; somebody's got to take the heat off Labour after all."
What I claim you did was to pick up what the beeb did.
What I claim the beeb did was move the goals.
My further intention was to point out that the beeb was taking the heat off of Labour.
The point of that part of my post was to credit you for bringing the beeb article to this thread, and agree that this was the new Labour focus, and to point out that the beeb was helping them by focusing on it.
I'll apologise for the ambiguity that has bothered you - sorry.
Also, if you read my post you'll see that generally if i take issue with a post I'll say so directly and usaully as sepcific response to the post!
Thanks for just giving the benefit of the doubt though, or just asking me what I meant!
Complain about this comment
238. mrbfaethedee
"Also, if you read my post"
Should read "Also, if you read my posts".
Don't want to compound one ambiguity with another.
Complain about this comment
With regard to Nick Robinson shutting down his blog arbitrarily.
I find that the Times does something similar with comments on articles. On subjects that are of general interest to English readers they allow hundreds of comments (well it seems like that) but on Scottish articles they tend either to moderate severely, allowing few comments, or not allow any comments at all. My means of protest is to enter critical comments which lets them know that I am conscious of what they are doing. Even although these comments are never printed (criticism of The Times never is), at least it lets them know that someone is not happy with their behaviour. A similar approach can be taken with Robinson's blog. Whether he will take any notice is a moot point but at least it gives us a direct method to protest and perhaps, if enough of us did it,.....? Who knows.
One of the few times I have seen responses from the person running a blog was from Michael White of the Guardian. He took umbridge about some comments complaining that he was out of touch with Scottish affairs when he penned an article about the Al Megrahi affair. When I looked at this blog some weeks later, the critical comments had been removed together with his responses to them and everything had been neatly sanitized for the benefit of future readers.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Day off today, so I thought i'd listen to the big debate, boy I wish I had'nt bothered.Sorry Brian but eventually had to switch it off ,reminded me too much of my teenage daughters squabbling over who broke the hair straightners (big debate in this household) Anyway my point is the petty - it was her ,no it was nae, standard of debate in fact shocking and even worse depressing.I'm torn between is this really the quality of our politicians or is there a conspiracy to make the voter so depressed and despondant that they will lose the will to vote on anything except the x factor.Surely Brian if a politician raises a point they should at least either have to produce facts ( not opinion polls ) or offer an alternative NOT JUST talk for the sake of making a noise. It would appear that we are getting dangerously close to running our political campaigns in a similar fashion to the x factor.You stand up ,say your party mantra, take your applause from your powerful sponsor then disappear until the next week when you return with yet another vacuous number, and a year from now a whole new set of hopefuls come in- but the show stays the same.Brian for years Scottish politics has totterred along not particularly demanding for political correspondants or journalists but things have changed and although the public appear more disillusioned they are still interested in what happens around them and cannot continue to be treated like an after thought in the game.I'm sure the response (both positive and negative )to both GMS and your blog has not gone unnoticed by your high heid yins so c'mon Brian start asking the who , why, what, where and when questions again you never know this listener might return
Complain about this comment
Nick Robinson's interview was woeful.
Will the rest of the UK allow Scots to remain in the British army?
Will the remainder of the UK get to keep using blue in the Union Jack?
Surely these questions (if they need to be asked at all) should be posed to whoever wants to run what's left of the UK.
Also on his report on BBC1 he was talking about whether or not you'd need to bring a passport when you cross the border, or whether or not you'd need to change your money.
I already have to change my money when crossing the border!
Complain about this comment
242. FatherMacKenzie
That's true but as usual, Alex Salmond was impressive in the face of stupid questions.
Would they have to take the blue off the flag? HONESTLY! That's the best Robinson can think of?
Not a single question on the list of tax proposals Salmond recently came out with, for example. Not a single question about what would be the specifics in the independence white paper. Pitiful.
Complain about this comment
On line Ed , I could only find that reference , the one I read originally allowed the chap involved to express his surprise at his arrest and deny any homophobic comments.
I watched Mr Robinson do his silly interview too.Obviously came accross the border to observe his parochial cousins and bring his sophisticated ways to the village idiots.
I am more than a tad tired of "our" political pundits in the media.
Ever since Sir Michaels hissy fit in print at Guido and other bloggers,he seems remarkably quiet!
Personally , I thank Guido for that!
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
234. At 11:26pm on 27 Nov 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:
.... but the fact is that concordat relies on the unremitting good faith and diligence of all the local councils in fulfilling their side, and that leaves many government policies as hostages to fortune.
The SNP surely knew this when they set it up, bold. They should just stay bold and ignore Gray and his motley crew, and ignore the media too.
I'm sure they will and I fully support them. Incredible interview with Pat Watters yesterday, in answering Hyslops statement that there need be a meeting with COSLA to findout why some councils appear to have 'difficulty' in recruiting teachers, Watters painted a picture of an education system in robust good health - it sounded almost as if Hyslop had been doing a pretty good job.
He did though concede that this was a minor "fall out", but that the concordat was in no danger of breaking up.
The SNP have taken the fight back to Purcell somewhat in the last couple of days, however none of us here are naive enough to believe that they will be given a fair hearing by the media.
Salmond has been flagging up Purcell's behaviour over teacher numbers for some months, but, just like when he continually raised the fact that the block grant was set to be cut the media in Scotland refused to acknowledge it.
As someone said earlier, nothing much hapened in the Scottish political village for decades and journalists up here went through the motions. Taylor is pretty much incapable of incitefull journalism, he could be removed from the payroll and few would notice.
His big debate had, as the second question, the subject of teacher numbers - a planted question if ever there was one [still cannot understand why this particular debate was closed to the public] and it skirted around the refusal of Glasgow council to recruit - Mike Russell to his credit did not hold back and openly stated that Purcell was playing politics with the education of children.
Glenn Campbell is a liability for any news vendor seeking credibility as is Renton after her Inverness antics [still no news outlet reporting the BBC's apology].
Only Gordon Brewer at the BBC currently gives Labour a grilling, not for nothing was Jim Murphy absent on Wednesday's Newsnight Scotland.
Gary Robertson shows some potential but is clearly not out to rock the boat as he seeks to establish himself. His two interviews with the respective SNP and Labour candidates for Glasgow NE was chalk and cheese, however he showed what he can do with Gray the other morning [the morning after the drink decision!!].
Having watched all of the broadcasts this week it wasn't surprising that Glenn Campbell all but became a Labour spokesman on Wednesday night when he 'excusively' broke the news that Labour would oppose minimum pricing.
I watched Brewer ask Campbell if Labour had ruled out increasing the price of alcohol or at least tinkering with the price - Wee Glenn responds like a Labour politician and waffles without answering.
Special mention to STV's Bernard Ponsonby who in my opinion is better than the lot at the BBC.
STV are missing a trick by not having an early evening political debate in midweek - 21:00 would be ideal.
Complain about this comment
It's absolutely pathetic that we can't comment on the Nick Robinson propaganda piece.
If the BBC has the right to post rubbish like thaton the internet for all the world to see, they damn well should be ensurin gthat we can respond to it for all the world to see.
What a load of tripe. Honestly, the BBC is worse than the very worst of the anti-Scottish media these days.
On the back of one Daily Telegraph commissioned poll, a paper whose polls on Scotland are always completely skewed and bogus, we have the whole of the British media proclaimig independence is dead, the referendum not wanted, Britain back together again all nice and cuddly as one big single country.
It is an outrage and mockery of democracy that Scotland's media, and its counterparts in England, are representative of only one area of Scottish political thought whereas a majority of Scots, as has been repeatedly shown in previous polls, are desirous of change to to whit, we want either full fiscal autonomy or full independence.
It is disgusting to see these anti-democratic practices occurring in a state that claims to be one of the world's greatest democracies and, indeed, includes the nation, England, where modern democracy was born.
This is beyond the pale. The unionist-orientated media have become almost fanatical in their mission to block Scottish independence and to initiate the collapse of the democratically elected party who govern us.
Beyond the pale.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Haven't read Nick Robinsons blog - I never do. However sounds like I should read this one.
Complain about this comment
#245
Oh, make no mistake, Online Ed. Hislop is reckoned by people in the profession to be doing a very good job. It is galling to have to watch the media tear into her at the behest of Labour lies. I would like to call it a farce but the damage it does is too serious to dismiss out of hand.
#247
Robinson's blog begins thus:
"The Scottish public doesn't want it; the Scottish Parliament won't vote for it - so why on Earth is Scotland's first minister about to publish the first-ever official plan for one part of the UK to break away from the rest?"
Wow. The Scottish public are all of a sudden of one accord that they don't want independence. Gee, what did I miss? because, well, actually, I still want independence and I know alot of other people who do.
This Robinson statement is based on a poll commissioned by the most openly anti-Scottish newspaper in the UK which practices Scot-bashing as a matter of course, and always under the pretext of being anti-SNP rather than anti-Scottish (as if).
This is ridiculous beyond acceptability.
Keep up the magnificent work Online Ed. It's much appreciated. And I strongly urge others to follow your example.
Complain about this comment
Labour MSP Iain Gray fails the education test as Glasgow's Labour Council of shame sack one quarter of all teacher numbers in Scotland
Iain Gray, quick with his mouth is the East Lothian gunfighter who always shoots the pianist in the gunfight, the best and safest place is to be in front of him when he pops off.
Pity the people at the side, they always catch the flak, as his words highlights their incompetence; generally he shoots his own party in the back, in the foot or in the nuts.
Complain about this comment
how many times are they going to "attack" Fiona Hyslop ?
Being critisised by Ian Gray Is like being savaged by a dead sheep.
It must surely be time for the gloves to come off
they are swaying on the ropes and when an oppurtunity presents it's self you must be prepared to take it.
Sid
Complain about this comment
248: I agree, switching to the preferred target Fiona Hyslop is an old favourite of the other parties, and the media fall into line.
Hyslop is very well regarded across the education profession in Scotland as being sensible, and crucially as being undogmatic - this sets her, and by extension the SNP, apart in this massive area of public policy. New Labour were hampered by 'initiative-itis' and their unseemly desperation to make the education system a cash cow for the so-called 'wealth creators' in the para-private sector (the part of the private sector 'creating wealth' by parasitically draining the blood out of the public sector (PPP/PFI)). Ditto the tories.
Unlike any of her predecessors (either UK or Scottish Secretaries of Education), Fiona Hyslop seems to genuinely care about education and understand its social as well as economic importance, and does not use reform as a stick to beat a profession whose members are neither understood nor liked by the vast majority of politicians. Thus, she is liked, so she must be doing something right.
On the BBC and Scottish media: For two years I have noticed that the editorial line of the BBC, especially Reporting Scotland, is dancing to the Labour Party's tune; that's when it's not playing its role of 'Old Firm News'. Reporting Scotland has outlived its usefulness, we need a greater variety, more real analysis and open debate. We have a major party in government that, whether some people like it or not, represents a significant portion of opinion in Scotland and it is not fairly treated by the media. Hence Robinson's twaddle.
Complain about this comment
238. At 00:05am on 28 Nov 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:
No problem, I was reading things with a splitting headache last night anyway.
245. At 09:09am on 28 Nov 2009, U14094468 wrote:
Pat Watters is from my area, and he is well respected. He prefers to work with whatever party is in government at the time, and when he does criticise they take up and notice.
The education system is in generally good health. I have kids at both primary and secondary schools. I do have some issues with the education system, but the standard of education is generally good, and the teachers I have met are dedicated to their job and are highly motivated.
I think Fiona Hyslop gets a lot of flak because she does not come across as well as Salmond or Sturgeon, so the opposition think she is an easy target. But those people who fill ministerial posts tend to be rather intelligent (even the other parties!).
I just wish politicians would stop using education as a political football. Children are the future of the country, whatever the status will be. These are the people who will be responsible for the economy and well being, so it is important for all parties to work together.
Complain about this comment
"David Maddox: Education row caps miserable week for beleaguered, friendless SNP "
Anyone read the paper Scotsman?If so can they fill in the drivelling detail of Mr Maddox latest spurious attack on the SNP.
There are no comments so I can't work out what he drivelled on about and I have no intentions of paying for that chip wrapper, bad enough buying the occasional Herald.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
I have flaged up George Lairds woderfully funny turn of pgrase before on this blog. It seems he's done it again as Roll_On_2010 at 249 poits out:
Labour MSP Iain Gray fails the education test as Glasgow's Labour Council of shame sack one quarter of all teacher numbers in Scotland
Laird writes:
"Iain Gray, quick with his mouth is the East Lothian gunfighter who always shoots the pianist in the gunfight, the best and safest place is to be in front of him when he pops off.
Pity the people at the side, they always catch the flak, as his words highlights their incompetence; generally he shoots his own party in the back, in the foot or in the nuts."
Unionists tend not to do humour, they seem genuinely incapable.
Which brings me to a joke I heard regarding Iain Gray's unfortunate twitching eye.
The joke goes thus;
Friend to Gray:
"Can't you do anything about that twitch"
Gray:
"Yes, aspirin would get rid of it"
Friend:
"Well, what's the problem then?"
Gray:
"It's impossible for me to get aspirin from the chemist"
Friend:
"Eh?"
Gray:
"Look" - Gray proceeds to empty his pockets of scores of condomes
Friend:
"What in heavens name are you buying condomes for?"
Gray:
"Well, every time I enter a chemist I ask for a packet of aspirin and then the bloody eye winks"
OK, it's an old joke but hey - it's the St Andrews day weekend.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
253. At 11:06am on 28 Nov 2009, Diabloandco wrote:
"David Maddox: Education row caps miserable week for beleaguered, friendless SNP "
Anyone read the paper Scotsman?If so can they fill in the drivelling detail of Mr Maddox latest spurious attack on the SNP.
There are no comments so I can't work out what he drivelled on about and I have no intentions of paying for that chip wrapper, bad enough buying the occasional Herald.
Maddox is from the same camp as Dave King at The Record, they are generally not taken seriously. The Scotsman has a tendency to stop comments when articles are so over the top that the jourlanist can be made to look foolish.
The Herald used to do much the same with Douglas Fraser's offerings just before he left to join the BBC, they very shortly after stopped comments altogether.
The press are in a mess in Scotland - I'm sure one will go under within a year especially given the state of the 'Old Firm'. Many in the central belt are attracted only because of the coverage of the big two, however as their supporters start to desert then so circulation amongst these same fans will decline.
Not for nothing are the Scottish media portraying the decline of the Old Firm as a decline in Scottish football - which it isn't.
The coverage afforded football on BBC Radio Scotland is unbelievable as are the number of talking heads employed by the BBC in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Interesting blog on a debate at Glasgow University about Independence. The part about Catalonia may be of interest to people who participate in Brians blog.
http://joanmcalpine.typepad.com/joan_mcalpine/2009/11/homage-to-catalonia.html
Complain about this comment
I see Nick's blog has been closed after only 20 entries.
Probably just as well, as I think he would have been on a hiding to nothing with the - "The Scottish public doesn't want it" comment.
Smart move Nick. Sometimes it's better to think before you type.
Complain about this comment
Re Nick Robinson's blog. I used to post there regularly last year but got fed up with the anti-scottish/anti-welsh/anti-north england/ anti-everything-outside-london bias and insults.
The BBC is publicly funded - therefore the public is entitled to post their views on a blog, even if the journalist disagrees. As long as you don't insult or use abusive language, there is no reason why the blog should be closed simply because they don't like the comments posted.
The BBC should look at itself closely. News International is desperate to take over the public service broadcast in this country from what I can see. The last thing we want is that organisation running the media.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
BBC Scotland 'Democracy Link' text transformation (It's on the politics page on the RHS) now complete:
From
Labour's day of shame
to
Labour oppose alcohol pricing plan
Initial edit blundered by leaving:
Labour's oppose alcohol pricing plan
Do they think we don't notice?
Now, at who's behest was this edit carried out?
Complain about this comment
# 255 Online Ed - here, here!
Complain about this comment
252. Neil_Small147
Fair enough - hope your headache's better!
Complain about this comment
255. U14094468
The media, the football, the lot - well said!
Complain about this comment
240
Yes I'd heard of this before. I also had a username at The Times for perhaps a few years that I had used now and again. One day the account was suddenly removed for no reason or acknowledgement, as was most of the comments on a few Scottish pages.
One way to combat this shenanigans is for a few link-minded people to get together and create a place along the lines of the CIF Watch. Probably should be such a place TBH. Look at the Megrahi and Glasgow NE nonsense served up recently.
This would act as a one-stop portal/destination for opinion and comments on articles where normally it would not be possible to do so due to no comment option available or lockdowns, and can also pool people together.
This would also channel decent web traffic and bring a new potential readership. It would also look more professional/legit than your usual 'start-up' bloggy. Not a forum type thing either.
I mean if BBC stopped all comments, even if purely for technical or money reasons (which is going on), yet continued the news and blogs, where would you all go? Would be a shame to lose contributors / such a resource. Not that I'm suggesting leaving even if there was something.
I had a place in the past (1998/2000 - not political related) where it was great but the thing was yanked out of no ones fault (think the provider stopped) and people, wealth of knowledge and fun, was just lost.
Complain about this comment
"Afghans must meet targets says Brown" headlined on the BBC homepage. Who is he to talk, just what targets has he met? Best placed to weather the recession? Ending child poverty, even just here in Britain? Helping to tackle Scots drink problems? ... Oh yes, he's still in power; score one to the man in red.
Complain about this comment
#256
The article from Joan McAlpine has some interesting ideas. The local referenda in Catalonia and the fact that they brought in EU observers seems to lift the gravitas of the whole independence movement. How could such an initiative be rubbished by the media? Some serious lateral thinking is required here to turn the tables on the unionists.
#262 I don't understand all the technicalities you describe but it sounds like an initiative which should be followed through.
Perhaps Brian has a secret soft spot for independence, or does he just believe in freedom of speech when he allows this blog so much leeway.
Nasty Nick Robinson should stay well south of the border if he is determined to do such offensive reporting. Too many folk down there are dictating how Scots should behave and trying to control our lives!
Complain about this comment
The Democratic Interact: speaking at 'Building a Movement for Yes!'
Complain about this comment
evening ,Hamish #265, with regard to Mr Robinson , the more he and his colleagues talk down to the "Scot's" the better . then and only then will the rest of our nation wake up and smell the coffee!
the other thing we are learning about the BBC "down souf" is they don't like it up them as corporal Jones used to say. They post their sneers and their spin and their half truths and slag off their neighbours but as soon as people retaliate -THEY RUN AWAY!
Quite everyone - oh did you hear that - that was Robinson's bottle going!
Sid
Complain about this comment
Some strategic thinking from SNP Tactical Voting.
http://www.snptacticalvoting.com/2009/11/campaign-for-yes-yes-yes.html
"Anyway, it was pretty clear from Shona's thoughts that engaging the next generation will be very difficult indeed."
(From my point of view, Jeff is the next generation! :-) )
Complain about this comment
137. At 9:56pm on 26 Nov 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:
"Remember that some products are deemed by society to be different from most others - that's why you need a licence to sell them, because it's only legal to do so according to rules defined by the state. Otherwise they'd be able to sell it to young kids legally - and they'd do it"
but they dont tell them how much they can sell it for.
Complain about this comment
I told you that bloggers had better be careful.
Yet another pro-independence blogger appears to have been silenced. He called a certain Euan McColm a "c" word among other things. More importantly he pointed out some serious "home truths" about why newspapers would attack Wardog.
http://the-universality-of-cheese.blogspot.com/
The cached version of this only is now available after the blogger in question had the temerity to verbally attack Euan McColm. The MSM and the unionists ARE silencing those they can. Anyone who thinks that it's because of obscenities should think again.
The MSM is closed to supporters of independence (at the moment--I suggest that newspapers COULD be purchased by pro-independence groups but that's another question). Of COURSE, they want to keep it that way.
Is this a conspiracy? Only if like-minded people acting in concern in what THEY see as their own best interest is a conspiracy, but I assure you that it was NO coincidence that the newspapers decided to attack the same blogger on one weekend.
Perhaps that emphasizes how valuable this particular blog is that it has NOT been silenced... How long that will last, who knows?
Complain about this comment
I love this poem!
"The Unionists" by Matt O'Neill
Are you the man ah'm lookin' for - the proud, unconquered Scot?
The man who hauds his heid up high regaredless o' his lot?
D' ye believe in "Wha daur mess wi' me?" The Declaration o' Arbroath?
If ye'r country wis in danger, wid ye rise tae swear that Oath?
Does ye'r heart fair swell wi' pride when the piper fill the bag,
or when ye see the Saltire or the Lion Rampant flag?
Dae ye raide a glass in honour tae oor heroes o' the past
who fought tae win oor liberty an' defend it tae the last?
If ye answer "Aye" tae aw these things, ye might jist be the man -
but dae ye know abbot oor history since the Union began?
There's maybe things ye dinnae know that should be brought tae mind;
some pointed facts - the battleaxe - tae cut the ties that bind.
For the past three-hundred years we've aw been subject tae the south;
cosseted an' humoured, tricked along by slight o' mouth.
Noo we're Anglicised, institutionalised, absorbed intae their state -
did ye never wonder why that is? Did we really earn this fate?
The truth is aye, it's aw oor fault, we did it tae oorsel's.
We didnae pay attention while the fly-men wove their spells.
We've lost oor independence, oor honour an' oor pride,
by handin' power tae Unionists who court the ither side.
For centuries the English tried tae drive us tae defeat;
they won some an' they lost some - but they never had us beat.
Then the Union took oor rights away, wi' the help o' traitor -Scots,
an' the Unionists have held us since while London calls the shots.
For years oor Scottish history wis "discouraged" in oor schools -
a policy o' dumbin'-doon tae turn us intae fools.
The teachers taught o' Hastings, King John n' Runnymeade,
while oor weak-kneed Scottish Unionists thought no' tae intercede.
When Thatcher harried Scotland, her war went unopposed;
oor Unionists, they aw stood back while industry wis closed.T
hey muttered fae the shadows, but widnae brave the light,
their jobs were too important tae be riskin' in a fight.
How can they be proud Scots when England tells them how tae act?
Ye cannae serve two masters - it's a plain an' simple fact.
Oor parliament in Holyrood wis wrung fae them through fear -
the fear that we wid break away - wi' Independence near.
When the Unionists rule in Holyrood, they're no' concerned wi' you;
they make it nae mair than a branch o' the Westminster HQ.
Aye, it's business there as usual - busy arguin' the toss -
but when somethin' major comes along, they check it wi' the boss.
The lies they've spread, the fear they've bred, tae keep the Union hail;
like border guards an' passports - lies that still prevail.
They lie, come Independence, we'll be livin' hand-tae-mouth,
an' oor kin will be like foreigners if they're livin' in the south.
They'll smile at ye sincerely, they'll gie ye'r haun a shake,
they'll warn that Independence could be Scotland's big mistake.
But jist remember how they think, the surest antidote -
it's England before Scotland, an' themsel's that they promote.
There's nae end tae their treachery, nae end tae their lies,
nae end tae the depths they'll stoop tae keep their Union ties.
They'll sell themsel's for coppers, an' their nation cheaper still,
they'll infect ye wi' their cowardice an' shackle ye'r free-will.
So when next time ye go tae vote, remember who tae blame,
the Unionists are waitin' for ye, confident ye're tame.
Remember that ye're jist a pawn in their bogus bon accord;
so become the proudest Scotsman - an' put them tae the sword!
Complain about this comment
269. kenstor
Of course they do. That is the point of taxing many items--
A POWER SCOTLAND IS DENIED.
Complain about this comment
James Naughtie has a piece on the Today web pages similar to Nick Robinson's which contains the following,
"Over the last few years opinion polls have put the level of support for a referendum at somewhere around a third,dipping or rising from time to time."
Naughtie and Robinson are entitled to make the case that independence isn't favoured by the majority in opinion polls(although we know that it sometimes has),but to try and make out that polls have consistently shown only a minority in favour of a referendum is outrageous.
I'm sure it's wrong to think that there was once a golden age of BBC journalistic integrity.The Corporation has always internalized many of the views of the British Establishment.Even so there was a time when the likes of Charles Wheeler and Robin Day represented something much better in BBC journalism than what we have now.
What we have now is Catriona Renton.
Complain about this comment
268. At 6:24pm on 28 Nov 2009, oldnat wrote:
It's not a bad blog, but seems to feel that blogging is going to be shut down. Well, if people act like wardog did then yes, that will happen. Read the term and conditions for almost any internet blog and abusive langauge/behaviour is not acceptable.
The rest of the narrative is good, and is correct in saying that communication needs to come from the social site etc. Facebook can be quite powerful.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Scottish Government take on councils who are using teacher numbers as a pawn in political game - Purcell has overstepped the mark and it's game on.
Click Here
273. At 9:39pm on 28 Nov 2009, mistydougie wrote:
James Naughtie has a piece on the Today web pages similar to Nick Robinson's which contains the following,
"Over the last few years opinion polls have put the level of support for a referendum at somewhere around a third,dipping or rising from time to time."
There is no other way to put it than Naughtie is lying - all polls show support for a referendum in the clear majority.
Any editor would have known that this paragraph is a blatant 'Renton'.
Complain about this comment
Neil, blogs have always and still do contain obscenities.
If you really think that is why Wardog was shut down, you have my sympathies--really. (But I'm willing to sell you a very nice bridge in Manhattan, cut-rate)
Blogger Begone
Complain about this comment
269. kenstor
"but they dont tell them how much they can sell it for."
Well that was a while coming ;)
I think you mean - to date they haven't.
Just because they haven't yet sought to control pricing, doesn't mean anything other than that they haven't yet sought to control pricing.
As the fragment you quoted was intended to point out, the reason that some things require licensing is because the state reserves the right say 'ok, you can sell/do this thing - but on condition you do it the way we say is ok'.
That's what licensing is for.
So if it at some point the state decides to constrain some licensed thing on a new way (e.g. minimum unit pricing), they do. If it's not been done before - wow!
Complain about this comment
*leaves before being accused of being an American encouraging Scots to use bad words--which they would NEVER do unless she made them*
Complain about this comment
270. JRMacClure
It's ok, he was swearing.
It's ok for people to be shut-up as long they've been swearing.
Also the fact that people are shutting people up because (ostensibly) they're swearing is ok to ignore; because they were swearing.
If you want to ignore the fact that the people who are doing the shutting up don't really have anything to do with it in the first place; that's ok too - because they were swearing.
The most important thing to remember is that
- It doesn't matter what happens to someone or why; if the person it happened to was swearing.
Complain about this comment
274. Neil_Small147
"Well, if people act like wardog did then yes, that will happen. Read the term and conditions for almost any internet blog and abusive langauge/behaviour is not acceptable."
That may be true, but most blog engines/publishers are filled with blog posts that contain swearing etc...
The t&c's of these sites and services are legal protection for the providers.
The point is that the the site in question wasn't shut down by google.
It wasn't shut down by the request of the individual who had cause to request it.
It was shut down by the user after unconnected 3rd parties threatened his livelihood.
This is acceptable because, apparently, if he was 'offensive', that serves him right.
Complain about this comment
274. Neil_Small147
"It's not a bad blog, but seems to feel that blogging is going to be shut down. Well, if people act like wardog did then yes, that will happen. Read the term and conditions for almost any internet blog and abusive langauge/behaviour is not acceptable."
You'll need to have words with Gordon and his henchmen about [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] then if it was purely about unacceptable language.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
274. Neil_Small147
"It's not a bad blog, but seems to feel that blogging is going to be shut down. Well, if people act like wardog did then yes, that will happen. Read the term and conditions for almost any internet blog and abusive langauge/behaviour is not acceptable."
My link fell by the mods google "the ranting penguin" and see what he calls the barroness of Scotland.
Complain about this comment
279. mrbfaethedee
"It's ok, he was swearing.
It's ok for people to be shut-up as long they've been swearing.
Also the fact that people are shutting people up because (ostensibly) they're swearing is ok to ignore; because they were swearing.
If you want to ignore the fact that the people who are doing the shutting up don't really have anything to do with it in the first place; that's ok too - because they were swearing.
The most important thing to remember is that
- It doesn't matter what happens to someone or why; if the person it happened to was swearing."
Well... Of course. Obviously, only evil and dangerous people say the "c" word. Right?
It is unheard in anything but mean and evil nationalists circles. No one else says it.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Tories consider autonomous Scottish party:
Click Here
Complain about this comment
A good article in the Sunday Herald by Iain Macwhirter on the opposition to the Scottish Governments attempt to raise the unit price of achohol.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/iain-macwhirter/time-to-remove-beer-goggles-and-support-minimum-alcohol-pricing-1.987117
Complain about this comment
285. U14094468
"Online Ed Here
Tories consider autonomous Scottish party:
Click Here"
Fascinating, though it would have been more so if the Scottish tories became autonomous, rather than just apparntly autonomous.
Nice to see the influence of business clearly presented in the artice too.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Good grief, The Scotsman have again been trawling the net looking for nationalist blogs that contain less than 'Sunday' language.
Click Here
No idea what this guy has been saying but he worked as Mike Russell's office manager so the media here will have a field day.
Seems that the media in Scotland have identified the huge independence supporting online community as a threat and decided to target it. That's fine, because the online community will now have to learn to adapt and hopefully consolidate resources.
Notice that some guy posting alleged lies about Unionist politicians on a personal blog is again worthy of a prominent headline and article yet a BBC reporter broadcasting fabrications about an SNP minister resulting in a BBC apology is yet to be acknowledged by them.
Anyone know if it was satirical or just blatant abise?
Complain about this comment
276. At 10:08pm on 28 Nov 2009, JRMacClure:
It's not the fact he was swearing, it was that he was describing an individual in less than polite terms.
I don't give a monkeys about swearing. I don't give a monkeys if he offended someone or why. I don't give a monkeys who he was insulting or why. Just pointing out that if you decide to be abusive to an individual, especially one who has influence, in public, then you are asking for trouble.
Blogs which support/criticise organisations or individuals are monitored by those with vested interests.
And let's be honest, wardog's argument that "JM is a ......" isn't exactly strong debating. You hear that argument down the pub.
Or at a gathering of press officers and politicians..........
Complain about this comment
289. Neil_Small147
"Just pointing out that if you decide to be abusive to an individual, especially one who has influence, in public, then you are asking for trouble."
Then the issue is, do we allow those who have influence the ability to shut people down on the basis of arbitrary exception to rudeness - i say no we shouldn't.
"Blogs which support/criticise organisations or individuals are monitored by those with vested interests."
And instead of us in turn monitoring the behaviour of vested interest and objecting to it, we accede to it?
"And let's be honest, wardog's argument that "JM is a ......" isn't exactly strong debating."
His argument was contained over the course of several posts, you are referring to a single statement he used as a headline.
" You hear that argument down the pub."
And yet they wouldn't dare shut down the pubs, they'd stand up for each other in the pubs.
Complain about this comment
I feel that the SNP should create their own online activities in order to ensure that there opinions are known, especially as the media has focused on a minority of bloggers who appear vile (its not like unionists have always been kind during discussions).
Complain about this comment
289. Neil_Small147
"And let's be honest, wardog's argument that "JM is a ......" isn't exactly strong debating. You hear that argument down the pub.
Or at a gathering of press officers and politicians.........."
lol!
nearly missed that one.
aff for now...
Complain about this comment
289. Neil_Small147
Mark MacLachlan, 46, has been forced to quit as Michael Russell's office manager after he used his blog and other electronic communications to spread abusive and defamatory messages about senior Labour and Tory figures....
Tell me again that they're not going after pro-independence bloggers.
Complain about this comment
289. Neil_Small147
The ONLY questionable thing I saw was when he called Euan McColm a "c" word for what they did to Wardog. This is smearing opposition politicians? Oh, yes and he said that "Colin Smyth, Scottish General Secretary of the Labour Party and Labour councillor for Nith Ward was kicked out, ejected, expelled, nay cast out by popular vote from a Dumfries and Galloway council meeting on Thursday this week."
I believe that is, in fact, true and was a public happening.
Complain about this comment
289. Neil_Small147
"And let's be honest, wardog's argument that "JM is a ......" isn't exactly strong debating. You hear that argument down the pub."
No, but it was a personal reaction of anger which I think an individual has a right to express.
The MSM and Unionists have obviously decided to target bloggers so anyone who has any vulnerability had BETTER watch themselves.
Complain about this comment
I'll post a link to the cache elsewhere to avoid any moderation dispute.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Bit of advice to all independence supporters - don't fart in a lift or The Scotsman will track you down.
The Scotsman's 'blogosmear' nonsense aside - I spoke to a couple of non politicos today and Labour have misjudged the minimum price issue ..... very badly by their reaction.
I'm desperate for Newsnet Scotland to attract the attention of The Scotsman; that will be a badge of honour.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
I think The Scotsman should try to track down the blogger who called independence supporters who criticised his views as 'vermin' and 'sewer dwellers'.
I'm sure he used to blog on The Herald - can't recall his name though.
Complain about this comment
If you are someone who can be hurt or whose associates can be hurt by what you say in a blog, make DARN sure that it can't be traced back to you. Yes, this means going to some trouble. But either do that or don't blog.
I saw this coming. People have taken their privacy on the internet for granted, a serious mistake.
No it isn't just obscenities. In fact, you can get away with obscenities. CAN you get away with revealing that a certain Labour politician pushed an old granny out of the way getting onto a bus or that a certain Labour politician was expelled from a meeting for rude and obnoxious behavior?
Don't BET on it. Not if there is a way to blackmail you into silence. I know certain moderate SNP members feel that it is a bad idea to point this out but it is blatantly true.
Unionists have GOOD REASON to silence the only media open to pro-independence forces. They control everything else.
Complain about this comment
By the way I don’t know whether anybody noticed but the blog in the Hootsmon is the same as the one JR mentions in her comment @ #270
“the-universality-of-cheese.blogspot.com/”
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Hmm, not sure who to believe, but the emerging story of the latest blogger to be targetted by The Scotsman might not have been Russell's manager at all but a lowly constituency worker.
He appears to have retaliated to the targetting of the 'Wardog' blogger by the media and used the 'c' word.
Still don't know what other posts he may have made but the signs are clear - Unionist journalists are trawling independence supporting blogs for anything.
We must have them worried !!
Complain about this comment
"What now?" asks Brian.
What now is that the SNP have added to their ammunition with which to smash Labour at the next Scottish Election if Labour is stupid enough to continue blocking the alcohol minimum pricing proposals. We already have their blocking of a referendum and blocking of Local Income Tax and I could sit down now and write the SNP manifesto.
I am much encouraged after a leasfletting exercise in a lovely part of Argyll today. The distant Arrochar Alps with snow covered tops made the perfect backdrop to crisp autumn day as we knocked doors, survied and leafletted a number of areas chosen to give us a good cross section socially.
Results.
Three new members for our branch.
PPC getting a majority support round the doors.
Labour's behaviour on the drinks issue abhorred at many doors.
Significant statements.
Two new members " We've never voted SNP before but who do they think they are telling us we can't get a referendum"
Senior citizen Tory couple
"We wont be voting Tory if they keep associating with that awful Labour bunch in the Scottish Parliament"
Much encouraged and there are currents now running in Scottish politics which will frustrate the media assault on the SNP. The drinks issue is significant.
It is the hole in the dyke. People are realising Labour opposition here is for crass party political reasons and has no decency to it.
Every other move by Labour from now will be carefully examined as a result of this to see how self serving it might be.
The dyke will collapse.
Finished up a great day at a Gaberlunzie concert tonight. Made an **** of myself by greeting at "Ae Fond Kiss" which I always do.
Complain about this comment
Interesting comment from Iain Macwhirter:
Labour and the Liberal Democrats ignored medical advice and wrecked attempts to introduce minimum pricing. People like me won’t forget – and there are more of us than you might think.
The little folderol over blogging will (I suspect) soon be forgotten. This? I'm not so sure.
But if you blog, do be careful.
Complain about this comment
293. At 00:05am on 29 Nov 2009, JRMacClure wrote:
"Tell me again that they're not going after pro-independence bloggers."
Never said they weren't. And in answer to mrb at 290, no I don't think anyone should accede to anything. But, if you are making allegations about an individual, then you are going to be challenged. As online ed points out, there are double standards at work. I'm quite sure there are unionist blogs which are abusive about the SNP leadership, but they do not get the media attention.
Maybe there will be a blog war........
Complain about this comment
Appears that Wee Eck has come out of his corner fighting….game on:
‘Not everyone supports independence but we all agree that things must change’
While our national parliament has enacted real change for the better, that process of democratic renewal and constitutional progress continues.
That is why tomorrow – St Andrew’s Day – I will unveil the Scottish Government’s vision of an independent Scotland, paving the way for the Referendum Bill we will bring forward early in the new year.
The White Paper we will launch distils the results of the National Conversation we have held with the people of Scotland since we came to office in 2007. And as such it is a historic and detailed document, which lays out the case for independence in unparalleled depth and clarity.
Complain about this comment
Found this on the Internet - small guide to blogging.
If the link breaks, Google:
"law blogs abuse slander on internet blog"
and select theftprotect, its about 5th on the list.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
301. U14094468
"the latest blogger to be targetted by The Scotsman might not have been Russell's manager at all but a lowly constituency worker."
That would put interesting omelet on their face if true. I don't know and if they're wrong, you can BET they'll never admit it.
Complain about this comment
The best way to blog is OUTWITH Scotland and the UK, which some of us can do... It's hard to pinpoint the blogger in that situation. ;-)
Complain about this comment
The bodyparts (or should that be bawdy parts) are definitely out to get us.
Complain about this comment
Christmas has come early for me:
Iraq Inquiry bombshell: Secret letter to reveal new Blair war lies.
The Mail on Sunday can disclose that Attorney General Lord Goldsmith wrote the letter to Mr Blair in July 2002 - a full eight months before the war - telling him that deposing Saddam Hussein was a blatant breach of international law.
It was intended to make Mr Blair call off the invasion, but he ignored it. Instead, a panicking Mr Blair issued instructions to gag Lord Goldsmith, banned him from attending Cabinet meetings and ordered a cover-up to stop the public finding out.
Complain about this comment
I'm sure William Wallace would have had no hesitation in calling Murphy whatever he was called in these two blogs that everyone is talking about and perhaps slapped him on the a**e with his broadsword too!
Complain about this comment
#310
This was the part of the article I liked best:
" The disclosures deal a massive blow to Mr Blair's hopes of proving he acted in good faith when he and George Bush declared war on Iraq. And they are likely to fuel further calls for Mr Blair to be charged with war crimes.
His only hope is that Goldsmith denies having written the letter but if the rest of the article is true he won't have any love for Blair.
Complain about this comment
I like Mr. Salmond's style:
On Scotland’s National Day, we say ‘let the people speak’.
Complain about this comment
310. Roll_On_2010
"Christmas has come early for me:"
And for all of us who are now seeing our assumptions about Labour's use of UK servicemen/women for the invasion of Iraq confirmed.
It would be appropriate if the truth resulted in a fall in support for Labour. Hopefully, those who are SNP/Labour floaters will be affected. Sadly, the die-hard Brits will be wholly unaffected - immoral/illegal wars are what Imperial Britain does (the fact that the UK is just a bit player in world politics doesn't seem to stop the Brit obsession with trying to rule the world!)
Complain about this comment
314. oldnat
Have you trawled the MSM lately. I have just done so and there are a quite a few articles that clobber NuLabour in most papers. The Goldsmith letter is even in the Indy….although it’s taken from the Mail it’s a far better article.
Iraq: The war was illegal
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile back at the NuLabour funny farm:
Alistair Darling in new clash with Gordon Brown over spending cuts.
Alistair Darling will use his Pre Budget Report to paint a grim picture of severe spending cutbacks over the next four years - setting up a pre-election clash with Gordon Brown.
Treasury sources told The Sunday Telegraph that the Chancellor's speech on December 9 would go much further than simply outlining Whitehall "efficiency savings" worth billions of pounds from next year.
Mr Darling, they said, was determined to leave voters in no doubt over the "tough choices" that needed to be taken as the government strives to hit its target of halving Britain's soaring public deficit over the next four years.
Roll On 2010
Complain about this comment
For once, I do envy you in the UK. I fear we'll never see such a result here, which is among the reasons that I despair for my country. I hope the truth does come out at least over there about the utter illegality of that war.
Complain about this comment
Top Labour official faces censure after rowdy debate.
Labour’s top official north of the Border has been reprimanded over alleged “boorish” behaviour as a councillor, the Sunday Herald can reveal.
Scottish General Secretary Colin Smyth was ordered out of a meeting of Dumfries & Galloway Council after he disrupted a debate on childcare after other councillors voted to remove him.
Despite his role policing the behaviour of other Labour MPs, MSPs and councillors, Smyth was found guilty under a rule designed to punish disrespect and “obstructive or offensive behaviour”.
One Independent councillor claimed the “barracking, hectoring tone” of Smyth and other Labour councillors as he refused to cede the floor had turned the council chamber into a “zoo”.
Complain about this comment
Question:
Is there any chance that some of this will begin to cut into the (mind boggling) Labour support in Scotland?
Does anyone have any guesses on the combined affect of the drink/Chilcot hearings? So far in Scotland nothing has budged the Labour base support. Is it unbreakable? Or is it finally beginning to waver?
Complain about this comment
318. Roll_On_2010
Is it possible that at some point The Herald might actually find its conscience? I sometimes have a spark of hope for it. Then they go back to their old ways.
Complain about this comment
320. JRMacClure
One can only hope.
The Goldsmith letter, as I said, was an early Christmas present to me. I was one of that small group of over 1 million people, out on the streets of London prior to the Iraq war. They did not do it in my name!
After 40 years on the front line of the Labour movement I walked away.
I was also amongst another group in Manchester outside the last but one Labour Party Conference telling this government to bring our troops home from Iraq.
Complain about this comment
321. Roll_On_2010
Believe me, I sympathize. I'm sure you realize that like many in this country I opposed that insanity from the start. It was obvious that the WMDs, etc were nothing but a thin excuse for aggression. When ANY of it is exposed anywhere in the world, I consider it a victory.
I'm glad to see some of the truth finally, finally coming out.
I worry that somehow no one will ever pay for the horrible suffering on so many sides.
Complain about this comment
306. Neil_Small147
""law blogs abuse slander on internet blog""
I believe that truth is an absolute defense in your country. From The Herald story, it looks like The Universality of Cheese does indeed have Truth on his side because that was the story that apparently brought the wrath of The Scotsman down on his head.
Oops! It was the TRUTH!
The Hootsmon may want to drop that story like a proverbial hot potato.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed here
I've managed to find a cached copy of the blog that The Scotsman is attacking - it appears to be a mixture of hard hitting political satire and revelations.
Link to cached website on on next comment.
Interestingly the most recent 'articles' cover the removal of Labour's Colin Smyth from a council meeting (covered by The Herald) and the attack on the Wardog blogger where the blog uses the 'c' word to describe the journalists who sought out 'Wardog'.
The essence of both stories are true, however the blogger also indulges in a bit of satire insinuating less than flattering charateristics about Smyth.
It certainly is not the co-ordinated campaign suggested by The Scotsman. It is offensive in places or funny depending on your political persuasion.
His position as a worker in Mike Russell's office I suppose makes it newsworthy but there seems absolutely no official connection with the SNP so the Damien McBride parallel's being put forward are nonsense.
Now, how many Labour activists or office workers have blogs where they are less than complimentary to rival politician's?
How many use colorfull language or even offensive language.
I well recall the former Herald political journalist who used offensive language to describe those who disagreed with him - 'vermin' was the term used - he now works at the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Malcolm Chisholm undermines Iain Gray again, this time over minimum pricing.
Well dome Mr Chisholm!!
Brian and the rest of the Scottish media - over to you.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
299. At 00:33am on 29 Nov 2009, JRMacClure wrote:
"If you are someone who can be hurt or whose associates can be hurt by what you say in a blog, make DARN sure that it can't be traced back to you. Yes, this means going to some trouble. But either do that or don't blog."
It is impossible not to be traced via the Internet, unless you can hijack yourself onto someone else's wifi connection, as certain depraved individuals who peddle filth on the Internet have found to their cost.
302. At 00:37am on 29 Nov 2009, sneckedagain:
You are out on the doorsteps gathering support. Why are the SNP volunteers not out on the doorstep in the central belt? East Kilbride and Strathaven is a definite possible for the SNP. I moved back to the town in 1996, and not a single SNP activist has been round the door of either the flat where I lived or my house now. Only Labour workers have been knocking on doors.
Some people don't like being disturbed, but I like politics on the doorstep, since you can ask the most awkward questions, but you tend to get a more honest answer. Last election the SNP did the old speaker-on-the-car trick, which is not very useful as through double glazing it sounds like the announcer at Glasgow Central.
If they came round the doors you could add 10% to the vote, and that might be sufficient to knock off Labour.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Jim Murphy indulging in his usual diplomacy by describing the SNP as having a "peculiar obsession bordering on the unhealthy" with independence and that they should "behave like patriots". (I may have pasted Murphy's comments on my previous comment - oops)
Pretty insulting stuff from Murphy and offering nothing as usual to the debate. What does he mean by "bordering on the unhealthy"? Is Murphy suggesting some kind of mental illness? Is he suggesting that a desire for independence is somehow not normal?
Perhaps some journalist mihght like to pursue Mr Murphy and ask for an explanation for these abusing terms.
Shereen Nanjani:
BBC highlighting The Scotsman article and allowing Bill Leckie to make some very strong allegations including that the SNP worker lied.
Leckie now going on to accuse people on the internet of attacking him and calling him horrible names. The inference is there for anyone to take that Leckie is talking of independence supporters - there is no mention of any other bloggers.
Now, imagine instead of an obscure blog that the lies had been broadcast on the BBC. Imagine that the source of the lies had been a BBC reporter who was a former Labour politician and candidate.
Yes, the Scottish press would be all over it - well wouldn't they?
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Bill Leckie doesn't support minimum pricing, he doesn't back Labour he says but then goes on to use the Labour arguments.
Leckie simply disregarding medical evidence but offering no reason for doing so - his reason for being against minimum pricing is that 'problem' drinkers will continue to drink - yes Bill perhaps most will but the evidence is overwhelming that good will come from this policy.
Shereen quite unbelievably makes no mention of Malcolm Chisholm's now public undermining of Iain Gray on this very policy.
Quite an astonishing omission from this programme. It manages to include a 'discussion' on a blog by an SNP worker but simply ignores the much bigger story - probably the weeks biggest story - a former Labour minister rebelling against Iain Gray's minimum pricing stance. (Calman proposals aside).
Radio now turned off ........
Complain about this comment
327. Neil_Small147
"It is impossible not to be traced via the Internet, unless you can hijack yourself onto someone else's wifi connection, as certain depraved individuals who peddle filth on the Internet have found to their cost."
Of course it's possible. You have a provider out of the country and someone does your posting FOR you. And yes, it is done.
Complain about this comment
327. Neil_Small147
Neil, in case you weren't aware of it Guido Fawkes has been known to challenge people to serve papers on his provider because that happens to be out of the country. A VERY wise precaution for a controversial blogger.
Complain about this comment
329. U14094468
"It manages to include a 'discussion' on a blog by an SNP worker "
Want to bet it omits any mention of a Labour member who was expelled from a council meeting for bullying behavior?
Could you give specifics of that program. Sounds like it's worth a complaint. ;-)
Complain about this comment
Whitehall hid evidence on Heathrow expansion.
The government colluded with the airports operator BAA to skew evidence in favour of expanding Heathrow and play down facts that could help opponents, secret documents indicate.
Naw, NuLabour wouldn’t do that……would they? On second thoughts wasn’t Meddlesome involved in the expansion.
Correct me if I am wrong but this was the time when the term ‘revolving door’ was introduced.
Complain about this comment
Appears that deceit is a culture across the whole of governance in the UK:
Ofsted ‘destroyed Baby P files’
An insider has accused Ofsted, the children’s inspectorate, of destroying “smoking gun” documents that could expose an attempted cover-up in the Baby P childcare scandal.
Complain about this comment
Brown and Cameron accused of going back on pledges:
Anger as new Scots tax powers face delay
Never mind ‘Spud'll Fix It’….. or will he?
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
From the P&J:
And the SNP – demanding the faster handover of powers over airguns, speed limits and drink-driving limits, and better working relations between Edinburgh and Westminster – flatly rejected the tax proposals for not going far enough.
No, the SNP have described them as damaging - which they are.
Complain about this comment
I read the article in the P and J, unfortunately I also read a brain dead comment by someone describing herself rather well.
For the life of me I cannot understand the mentality which agrees with the "we are too poor ,too stupid, too drunk/drugged , too fat ,too unhealthy too uneducated etc etc etc "of some Scots towards the NORM for most countries, of being independent.
I wonder how Greenland is coping?
Is there something in this dependency which allows us to be asset stripped , decried as scroungers ,used as a WMD/nuclear dump ,insulted as a nation,insulted by the media , talked down by the " impartial" broadcaster and still wanting to stay within the "protection " of Westminster?
Westminster which took us into an illegal war allowing for the maiming and killing of our own young and of the young of another innocent country.
" This is NOT about regime change, this is about WMDs capable of 45 minutes deployment"
Some of you may find that laudible , or have'nt bothered to think , some of you may swallow every lie told by a politician of your choice, some of you may even believe the BBBC and a Scottish media - which is beyond my disgust.
Complain about this comment
#336 U14094468 (Online Ed)
No, the SNP have described them as damaging - which they are.
Calman panel member warns of 'disastrous' tax changes
A Member of the expert group which recommended tax reforms to the Calman Commission has broken cover to warn that the planned changes are "a disaster waiting to happen" which would cripple the Scottish economy.
Professor Andrew Hughes Hallet, writing with fellow economist Professor Drew Scott, has slammed plans to create a new Scottish income tax rate as "unworkable" and "illiterate".
Complain about this comment
330. At 09:35am on 29 Nov 2009, JRMacClure wrote:
327. Neil_Small147
"It is impossible not to be traced via the Internet, unless you can hijack yourself onto someone else's wifi connection, as certain depraved individuals who peddle filth on the Internet have found to their cost."
Of course it's possible. You have a provider out of the country and someone does your posting FOR you. And yes, it is done.
Erm, no. Technically anyone can be traced. Whether anything is done about you depends on where you live, not where your service provider is located.
If someone in the UK accesses illegal material on the Internet, it does not matter where the server is located or if your service provider is located in another country. The same applies for posting comments about individuals.
It is rare for ISPs to be prosecuted anyway. The court would have to prove they were actively involved in allowing illegal activities.
I know you have more freedom over in the States regarding free speech. But then, yours is a country where a woman successfully sued a restaurant for getting burned with hot coffee, despite the fact she was the one who threw it during an argument!
Complain about this comment
Is the BBC going mad?
I was reading Brians blog when I got a message "you are trying to access some sensitive information we want to be sure that it is still you"
Is Brians blog "sensitive information" and since the information was initially accessed on this computer what difference would it make if "it was not me"
Also would not let me re enter password on the first three tries. Is this the start of BBC censorship on Brians blog?
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
So, the Scottish media and certain commentators would have you believe that only independence supporting online contributors ever use less than flattering language.
Leaving aside the well known Unionist blogger who frequently described independence supporters as anti-English, bigots and believed them to be anti-semitic, here are a couple of blogs/forums where non independence supporters give their views on Alex Salmond.
The language can be a bit choice !!
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
or here ...
even here.
There are scores, believe me - should they be forced to close down? - No, absolutely not.
Are they evidence of a campaign against the SNP? - No, they are the personal opinions of individuals who are less than enamoured with Salmond and/or Scots.
Have any Labour politicians made disparaging and insulting remarks about either Salmond/SNP or independence supporters? - Yes.
There's a lot of rough and tumble out there, the Scottish media are selectively highlighting some blogs - in that sense then theirs is the only targetted campaign.
Complain about this comment
Trident - Another deterrent myth down the pan:
Revealed: how UK’s nuclear bombs are built by America
Britain’s Trident deterrent’s independence ‘undermined’
The Ministry of Defence has been forced to reveal one of the most closely guarded secrets behind Britain’s nuclear weapons programme.
For years UK ministers have repeatedly refused to say where neutron generators – a vital component of the Trident warheads stationed on the Clyde – were manufactured. The information had to be kept secret for national security reasons, they said.
national security reasons - its amazing what our governments can hide from us with these few words!
Complain about this comment
#327
You are spot on. The only way for the SNP to beat the huge establishment bias which runs all our media and is now trying to crucify the SNP is to get out round the doors. This is second nature to us old-timers who always knew the enemy we faced and have been have been fighting it by contact contact contact with people for over forty years. There is a new breed of SNP which has inherited the comfortable fruits of previous efforts and quite frankly haven't come to terms yet with what the press is doing and will continue to do against the independence arguement. If they believe strongly enough they will learn, and very quickly.
I think Glenrothes and to a greater effect Glasgow North East has delivered a salutary lesson to many in this regard and I am optimistic - confident actually - that we will continue to move forward through the present firestorm. Why? Because I have not since the 1960s seen so many clever and motivated young people in the SNP. We are the future.
When the media reduces its political coverage to headlining the very often amusing bloggers describing prominent labour persons as bodyparts we know they are at panic stations. They are in the territory of diminishing returns on this scurrilous stuff.
As a matter of interest I taught lots of EK kids when I taught in Hamilton late last century ("EK - OK" was the battle cry then) and I even had a pub in Straven (Strathaven) for a bit.
Complain about this comment
Murphy trying to tell the SNP to give up on Independence is like telling the Labour Party to give up on the working man.
What do you mean, they have?
Complain about this comment
http://twitter.com/lenathehyena
Complain about this comment
#342
If that article is true, it means that there is unequivocal proof that the UK and the USA are in direct violation of the nuclear non proliferation treaty which regards the transfer of nuclear materials or weapons - even between states who possess the technology - as a breach of the NPT agreement.
I expect nothing to happen with regards to this, as Israel has secretly possessed nuclear weapons for almost 20 years - yet the UN and NATO have never even censured Israel for this - let alone passed sanctions as punitive measures.
Compare this with the treatment of Aparthide South Africa that had at least 5 Nuclear warheads during the 80's and you will see how hypocrisy and double standards apply to everything the UK and the US are party to.
Complain about this comment
Tax powers would be damaging to the Scottish economy!
My take on this was - how could the opposition parties wish to apply damaging tax powers to the Scottish economy when they themselves would expect to be in power at some time in the future and be left holding this baby?
Perhaps the Tories and the Labour have now awoken to this fact. The Calman commission was only ever intended to weaken and damage the SNP's case for independence, but that can only be a short term advantage to the opposition and it would be a millstone around Scotland's neck. The Liberals don't seem to have grasped this yet.
Talking of necks, it's nice to see Annabell getting some in hers from her own party. She brushed off the suggestion this a.m. but, it's comin' yet for aw that, I'll wager. Gray too is on a sticky wicket over the minimum pricing. Big faux pas by him. I wonder if he is sleeping at night?
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
My comment 341 highlighted blogs and forums where Alex Salmond is referred to using the 'c' word - I supplied links.
I also highlighted Unionist blogs that make disparaging claims against SNP supporters - accusing them of anti-semitism, bigotry and xenophobia.
Such blogs are everywhere and both sides of the constitutional divide post 'passionate' opinions that often contain intemperate language.
They of course differ from Labour's Damien McBride in that they are the opinions of individuals and are not an attempt at co-ordinated campaigns.
I watched Glenn Campbell being swatted by Mike Russell earlier, Campbell tried his usual tactic of asking a question then interrupting Russell as he answered - Russell simply spoke over him and finished his answer.
Nice of Glenn to allow Gray a free slot right at the end in order to make vague allegations against the independence online community.
Complain about this comment
310, 321 Roll_On_2010
The Goldsmith letter is indeed an early Christmas present.
Finally, we begin to see more clearly the lies and deceipt perpetrated by Tony Blair on both the Parliament and the British people..
I too was one of that little group of over 1 million people who was out on the streets of Glasgow to state unequivocally that they did not do it in my name!
Now I think I know why Robin Cook resigned. I have always thought that he knew something that we didn't, and that this knowledge was the cause of his resignation. Now I know.
It is very saddening that he is no longer with us to see his integrity vindicated. It is also very saddening that over 100,000 dead Iraqis along with 179 British troops are no longer with us to see the truth finally surface.
It can only be a matter of time now before Blair has to face up to his war crimes. It can't come soon enough for me.
I fervently hope that JRMacClure gets her wish to see Bush get his comeuppance too, though under the American system of "justice" this is highly unlikely.
Complain about this comment
304. Neil_Small147
"Never said they weren't. And in answer to mrb at 290, no I don't think anyone should accede to anything. But, if you are making allegations about an individual, then you are going to be challenged. As online ed points out, there are double standards at work. I'm quite sure there are unionist blogs which are abusive about the SNP leadership, but they do not get the media attention.
Maybe there will be a blog war........"
Your right that this is all enabled by double standards, but when I talk about simply acceding to these events - I think it can be clearly seen that we are. Wardog goes down, no serious criticism of the establishment's behaviour from the MSM or via the Nationalist community (we accede), some isolated blogger retaliates in the same style (unfortunately, given the lack of a body supporting a reataliation), they go down, and then the political establishment (all-sides) come out in condemnation.
Of what, bad-language, vulgar abuse?
That's what I mean by acceding to it, we accept that the 'offensive' language directed at individuals is the whole story. For the record too, i'll be amazed to hear of any legal action actually taking place with this one either, that's just in for the spun outrage.
So the issues that were also being highlighted are left alone, and the only story left is offensive bloggers being shut up.
Your right - as i've also said before - that any blogger doing this is giving any potential enemy exactly what they need to stop them dead (particularly if they have an official association with a politician or party). That doesn't mean that it is right for them to do it, and i'd like to see some people saying so (not that any politician would be able to get away with it), and I suspect that, beyond some posters on this blog, i'd wait a long time before anyone would.
Complain about this comment
"This week the SNP Government tried to introduce minimum pricing on alcohol - but it was blocked by our mealy-mouthed opposition parties.
After years of research, here was sensible legislation to help tackle Scotland's excessive drinking.
But it was knocked back at the first hurdle by Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dumbs - all of them unionist parties, I might add - without so much as a debate in Holyrood."
We’ll all suffer hangover from booze price row
Donald Macleod, Scottish Sun
Complain about this comment
348. U14094468
Still, Susan Deacon's unequivocal statements on Labour's position on minimum unit pricing were another damning indictment.
How many former and backbench Labour folk talking sense will it take before they set up a critical mass, and begin the realignment of the Labour party in Scotland with values? Is there an embryonic shadow Labour party in Scotland waiting to reanimate the current political zombie?
Complain about this comment
340. At 11:19am on 29 Nov 2009, dubbieside wrote:
I think you'll find it's not the BBC, but a common check to avoid the automatic spammers (or whatever they are).
Google is notorious for it, especially if you are searching within the different Google parts.
Complain about this comment
#351 albamac
A no holds barred article on the side of common sense.
I reckon that the Hootsmon will have a job trying to shut that blog down.
Complain about this comment
SNP urged to drop Scotland referendum plan
"Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy accused the SNP of a "peculiar obsession" with independence, adding: "In these difficult times they should behave like patriots, not just like nationalists, and put Scotland before their party.""
Put Scotland before their Party! Just goes to prove what a two-faced little weasel Jim really is. For him to suggest that the Scottish Nationalist Party (the clue's in the name) should put Scotland before their party is just absurd.
It is the British Labour Party in Scotland (known as Scottish Labour) who have their priorities wrong not the SNP. I wouldn't expect someone of Jim's intelligence or allegience to understand the difference. He's British after all.
"Conservative leader Annabel Goldie said an independence referendum would cost £9m and many hundreds of hours of parliamentary time."
How much money and time has been wasted with the Calman commission? This useless piece of obfuscation by the Unionists is just an attempt to "paper over the cracks" that are appearing in their misplaced love of the Union. They think that they can use this excuse for a reoprt to pull the wool over the eyes of the Scots yet again.
This idea that we Scots can have " a sort of an independent country" is just not good enough for me. I want the real thing, and nothing less than the real thing. I know I'm not alone, in spite of what they might want me to think.
Nice to See Malcolm Chisolm once again holding on to HIS integrity, unlike the rest of his Party.
It can't be long now until he either ousts Gray or is ousted from the Labour Party himself. I'm sure he'd be welcomed into the SNP, they seem to have a monopoly on integrity at Holyrood.
Complain about this comment
351 albamac
How the Sun turns...
Is this the beginning of a re-awakening in the Scottish press?
Well said Donald Macleod.
Complain about this comment
#349
100,000 dead Iraqis? Even the most conservative estimates multiply this figure by 3 and some UN agencies have posited three quarters of a million.
Chris Walker, who lived and worked in Iraq for many years and previously served as an elected member for one of our major paties, puts the figure of Iraqi deaths as a result of our two illegal invasions at at least 1 million.
Blair, Brown, Bush and Rumsfeld should be awaiting trial the moment. However the Scottish media have more important matters to deal with. Somebody apparently called Jim Murphy a bodypart.
Complain about this comment
339. Neil_Small147
"Of course it's possible. You have a provider out of the country and someone does your posting FOR you. And yes, it is done.
Erm, no. Technically anyone can be traced. Whether anything is done about you depends on where you live, not where your service provider is located.
If someone in the UK accesses illegal material on the Internet, it does not matter where the server is located or if your service provider is located in another country. The same applies for posting comments about individuals.
It is rare for ISPs to be prosecuted anyway. The court would have to prove they were actively involved in allowing illegal activities.
I know you have more freedom over in the States regarding free speech. But then, yours is a country where a woman successfully sued a restaurant for getting burned with hot coffee, despite the fact she was the one who threw it during an argument!
"
They can only trace it to the person who does the posting. You ignored my comment that the person does NOT do their own posting. And I don't know about your country but over here people DO go after ISPs who allow illegal activity.
As for that coffee story, it's pure tosh. That is not what happened but it's years old and not worth going into although I will can could no doubt find links on the TRUTH if I tried. That story is a corporation AT FAULT putting spin on their own culpability.
Complain about this comment
The Sun may be turning. (Apparently it did so at Fatima in 1917 but I digress)
But the "Scottish" Express (Daily and Sunday) has gone mental and it's attacks on the SNP have now reached the demented level.
Perhaps Dorothy Grace Doolally has been put in editorial control.
I have a theory. All this is going to backfire.
As the nonsense talked by Labour (and its ineffectual we pals Tory and LibDem) reaches the realms of obvious unreason the Scottish media continues to report it as if it were the word of God.
A larger and larger proportion of the Scottish public however are wakening up to the fact that they are being fed mince by their newspapers and when the final pennies drop they are not going to like it. People don't like to think they are being taken for fools or that they are having their intelligence insulted.
If this backfires it will make some blaze.
Complain about this comment
357 sneckedagain wrote:
#349
100,000 dead Iraqis? Even the most conservative estimates multiply this figure by 3 and some UN agencies have posited three quarters of a million.
Totally agree with you on this, I was (perhaps erroneously!) keeping to the "official" numbers. I personally go with the 600,000 figure stated in a [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]report by the Bloomberg School of Public Health, School of Medicine, Al Mustansiriya University, Baghdad, Iraq in cooperation with the Center for International Studies, MIT, as published in the Lancet.
This was only up to 2006, so is probably considerably higher by now.
I would want Blair, Brown, Hoon, Straw, Campbell, and Goldsmith on trial in this country for treason, and then sent to the Hague to be tried for their war crimes.
In a just world Bush, Cheney, Rumsfelt, Wolfowitz, Libby, Rice, and (perhaps unfortunately) Powell would also all be facing the ICC.
I'm sure the British press in Scotland have much more important news to report. Aren't bodyparts useful? The only one I know of that doesn't seem to have any apparent use is the appendix. Is Jim an appendix?
Complain about this comment
357. sneckedagain
Tried to respond, but someone's referred my post. There is obviously something in it that someone doesn't like. (did someone say they don't like it up 'em?)
I agreed with your much greater figure - the Lancet published a report in 2006 that suggested a figure of 600,000.
I added a few more to the list of "people" I would like to see in front of the ICC, all members of the Bush-Blair alliance.
I agreed with you that the British press in Scotland had much more important things to report.
I queried the value of bodyparts. They are all useful as far as I know, except the appendix. I wondered if Jim was one of these.
Complain about this comment
U-turn on climate change 'cover up' as university says it will publish leaked email data.
British scientists accused of manipulating figures to strengthen the case for man-made global warming have bowed to international pressure and will publish their raw figures, it emerged today.
Complain about this comment
361. X_Sticks
Well, we all know that he and his cohorts don't have the balls to put the constitutional status of Scotland up for a vote.
Complain about this comment
361. X_Sticks
"I queried the value of bodyparts. They are all useful as far as I know, except the appendix. I wondered if Jim was one of these."
Turns out the appendix does serve a useful function serving as a repository of halpful bacteria which can replenish the gut after illness.
Guess that leaves a solitary item on our list of useless bodyparts - just Jim the Murph.
Complain about this comment
#361
The bodypart to which Jim Murphy was compared has in fact only four letters and was apparently something of an obsession of our national bard (and most of the rest of us quite a lot of the time).
I suspect this nomenclature may well be taken up at Firhill at Partick Thistle matches and used by the rather better spoken sort of chap for the university than supports the Jags as in "Away ye go,yah useless big bodypart" when the ball is skied over the bar.
Complain about this comment
I watched Mike Russell taking on Campbell too. I think politicians are beginning to take a leaf out of Mandelson's book when he was interviewed by Andrew Marr. Mandy just ignored Marr's interventions and talked right over him making him look like an idiot. This seems to be the way to deal with interviewers like Campbell. Campbell will begin to look stupid and unfair in the eyes of the public if he continues with his interruptions as no one can make any sense of the interview when they talk over each other.
Campbell made big play of the blogger resignation throughout the programme and then gave Gray the last word when he shut down the line to Mike Russell. Its becoming too obvious what game the BBC are playing. They have even abandoned subtlety.
Complain about this comment
# hamish42...............I recorded the Politics Show (OK I am a glutton for punishment) and have only recently watched it.
I agree with you,Cambell was out of order in shuting down Mike Russell and then asking the Gray Man for his opinion on the blogger.
Another nasty cheap shot by Campbell.
Complain about this comment
365. sneckedagain
I know snecked, i have been watching the wardog saga. I was just being facetious. Jim does, however, seem to me to be a bit of an appendix!
vermiform appendix
–noun Anatomy, Zoology. a narrow, blind tube protruding from the cecum, having no known useful function.
I must however bow to mrb's updated information on the appendix - it seems it does have a use, unlike Murphy. Not sure I agree with wardog's bodypart being used to describe the Murph. I've always found that to be useful ;)
Complain about this comment
I'm not a scot but good for Mr Salmond in sticking to his election pledge to hold a referendum, and shame on Labour members who did not stick to their pledge to hold a referendum on Lisbon. Seems like, according to Labour, it is patriotic not to ask the voters' opinion on constitutional matters affecting the question of who governs the country. What a disgrace Labour has become.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Campbell will begin to look stupid and unfair in the eyes of the public if he continues with his interruptions as no one can make any sense of the interview when they talk over each other.
Oh yes, I witnessed the reaction of a non politico today ( I insisted that this particular part of the programme be played) and it was absolutely 100% against Campbell - make no mistake that this wee man riles people.
Questioned the woman afterwards on the content of the interview and she didn't know, the only thing she picked up was that Campbell had asked a question and then ignorantly tried to talk over the response.
Now, it doesn't win the debate but this man's credibility is eroding - the SNP have to take him on when he does this.
Newsnet Scotland reached 470 subscribers today!!
New article at the usual place.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8384927.stm
Malcolm Chisholm... The last decent Labour MSP?
Between him taking a non political standpoint with al-Megrahi and a non political standpoint with the Minimum pricing... I think our biggest threat come the Holyrood election is if the rest of the Labour Party take a leave out of his book.
A thoroughly respectable man who clearly thinks before he acts.
Complain about this comment
#369
Jim Murphy IS a disgrace to Scotland. He's little more than a mongrel pup being ordered to heel, attack and defend his benefactor - the Union.
This man is the epitome of the treacherous swine who sold our kin and country into bondage with the English all those years ago. To call the SNP or anyone who favours giving Scotland back it's pride unpatriotic is a cheap, baseless remark by a cheap and useless politican.
The man will stoop lower than a rat to prevent Scotland realising it's destiny - to stop us all from breaking free of the overbearing, anonymous influence of arrogant, self important and concieted miscreants. Those cheats and swindlers, who have been lying you, your parents and your grandparents your entire lives - teaching you nothing about your country - your heritage or your rights to live a free men and women in a country that is free to make it's own choices.
Complain about this comment
371.
Mr Chisholm was also the sole Labour dissenter when they last had a vote regarding Trident
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really don't understand what Jim Murphy thinks he is doing, perhaps if the Tories are serious about treating Scotland with respect they'll pick a Scottish secretary from whichever party forms the Holyrood government. Then it would really be Scotland's voice at Westminster rather than Westminsters voice in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
#371
The BBC article seems to place much emphasis on the legality of the SNP's proposal, but why can't Labour take legal advice themselves on this. I think I can answer that - its because they know the answer already but they want to continue to activate against the SNP.
I don't know about the protocols associated with parliamentary procedures but according to the SNP its against protocol to disclose legal advice sought by the government. Iain Gray must know this so he is using a basic untruth in his argument against the proposal (what's new?). So what is the problem for the Labour party? I know the answer to that too - It's the eminence grise.
(Definition: Eminence grise - a person who exercises power or influence without holding office. Got it in one!).
Complain about this comment
I find it amazing that the opposition have urged Alex Salmond to put a stop to the referendum. How can the opposition attempt to argue that 'we're focused on the recession' line, while at the same time they're also planning to introduce Calman... apart from the Tories of course.
Complain about this comment
#373
if the Tories are serious about treating Scotland with respect they'll pick a Scottish secretary from whichever party forms the Holyrood government. Then it would really be Scotland's voice at Westminster rather than Westminsters voice in Scotland.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a wonderful idea. I do not think the Tory party are pragmatic enough to agree to that though. Most likely we'll see a return to the bad old Thatcher years. Cameron has no intention of leaving Scotland alone. He couldn't keep his trap shut regarding al-Megrahi & George Osbourne isn't up in Aberdeen every 3 months for the good of his health.
They plan on doing a number on us just the same as Bliar did when he stole 60000 miles of Scotlands waters and gave it to England.
Complain about this comment
Scottish economy headed for 'more pain'
"Scotland's growth will continue to lag behind the rest of the UK's, according to a leading economic think tank.
Ernst & Young's Item Club said there were "disturbing weaknesses" in the Scottish economy and predicted growth of -4.9% this year and 0.7% in 2010."
In case you missed that folks, Scotland, which should be in a similar position to Norway in this recession, will even be lagging behind the rest of the UK in economic growth. This must be yet another of the Union benefits to Scotland. Isn't it a wonderful place to be. We are so well looked after by the Union. Why would we even consider leaving? We must be mad.
Complain about this comment
371. GAberdeen
"
A thoroughly respectable man who clearly thinks before he acts."
Are there sufficient (17) other politicians with conscience intact amongst the opposition parties at holyrood to push this through?
Complain about this comment
I see that Moridura has felt it necessary to make his blog "invitation only", presumably as a result of the fate of Wardog and Universality. This is a real shame, I enjoyed his blog. I'm puzzled as well - his posts were considered criticisms, not mere bombast or insult.
Complain about this comment
I have been in touch with other bloggers, at least some of whom are considering moving their blogs out of the UK for their own protection. This is ridiculous.
Criticizing what someone says is one thing. Attacking their employment is something entirely different. It is shameful.
Complain about this comment
379. obviousalias
It should be made clear that Wardog's and Universality's posts were NOT mere bombast and insult. Do NOT accept that at face value.
They both are intelligent men who made excellent and truthful points. Yes, they both on a FEW occasions used an obscenity but that did NOT mean they were merely bombast or insult by a LONG shot. If that had been all they had done, frankly, I doubt anyone would have bothered. But they were telling WAY too much of the truth.
Complain about this comment
Iain Gray used his free comment on today's Politics Show to demand an apology from Alex Salmond, not just over the issue of Mike Russell's disgraced aide, but to account for what he sees as the problem of 'cybernats'.
Today's newspapers further quote him attacking 'cybernats' for "disgusting attacks not just on politicians but on journalists who don't toe the SNP line", demanding that the First Minister must "root out, and apologise for this filth".
Apart from the timing of this being deeply suspicious, Gray's assertions of course promote the twisted charade that the SNP are somehow uniquely reliant on some faceless muck-spreading campaign, the counterpart of which would be unthinkable from unionist supporters.
Against the background of a 'Scottish' media which so often blindly toes the Labour line, and an array of newspapers that perpetually issue anti-SNP propaganda and wholesale misrepresentation, I for one assert my individual right to be one of those 'cybernats' for which Gray feels Mr Salmond should apologise.
In his 'holier-than-thou' stance, does Gray take personal responsibility for every vile comment written or posted against Alex Salmond and the SNP by persons known or unknown? Or for that matter any of the despicable cariacatures posted on You Tube - of which there are more than a few?
Will Gray offer an apology for shameless demonising of the SNP by a number of unionist tabloids - some of which were distributed to polling booths - on the day of the 2007 Holyrood elections? Or for decades of smears and propaganda against the independence movement by the UK political establishment?
Or is he proposing that any blog, such as this BBC one, which evidences distinct SNP support should now be labelled 'offensive'.
The breathtaking hypocrisy in the reaction of the three main unionist parties - seeking to wholly condemn the SNP over a single rogue individual - is itself perhaps as inevitable as the deployment of yet another twisted anti-SNP media campaign on the eve of the Scottish Government's launch of the Independence Referendum white paper.
The desperate adherents of British unionism could never countenance a level playing field, after all.
Theirs is a failed and outdated concept which has no positive message, nothing to offer Scotland but the eternal begging bowl, and little to represent it other than systematic scaremongering.
We can fully expect the mud-slinging against the Independence Referendum to get dirtier than ever over the weeks and months ahead.
Complain about this comment
376. GAberdeen
"They plan on doing a number on us just the same as Bliar did when he stole 60000 miles of Scotlands waters and gave it to England."
The old boundary between English and Scottish waters was horizontal to the border. The new one follows the international convention for delineating territorial waters between different countries. It's the boundary that we'll have after independence, so there isn't actually a problem with the new line.
Complain about this comment