The cost of drink
Intriguing exchanges in the health committee today with the drinks industry, mostly, pressing hard against Scottish Government plans for minimum pricing for alcohol.
One exception is Tennent's Caledonian who argued that, if implemented appropriately, minimum pricing could be part of a package aimed at tackling the social problems associated with drink, especially if it was aimed at the high-strength products.
But, for the most part, the drinks industry executives giving evidence to MSPs today argued that minimum pricing was a blunt instrument which would do little to tackle perceived problems and would risk harming their business considerably in the bygoing.
Whyte and Mackay, for example, warned of damage that would be done to their production of low-cost, supermarket own-brand Scotch.
They forecast that between 200 and 300 jobs could go.
Further, the industry argued that minimum pricing was illegal under European law - and would be challenged as such, should the Scottish government proceed.
The discussion this morning ranged far and wide through labelling, health warnings and other issues - as it did later on such issues as the planned social responsibility levy.
Trading laws
It appeared from the general tone of the questioning that MSPs felt the industry could do more to address the social consequences of their products.
But perhaps the sharpest exchanges occurred between Michael Matheson MSP and Gavin Hewitt, the chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association.
Mr Mathieson was plainly exasperated by Mr Hewitt's repeated insistence that minimum pricing would be illegal in that it interfered with international trading laws on price-setting.
Mr Hewitt asserted that, should an exception be made for Scotland, then other countries might use that precedent in order to impose punitive pricing on imported Scotch in order to protect their home markets.
He gave the example of Korea where, he said, the association had to be perpetually alert to the prospect of discriminatory pricing.
The Koreans, he said, had a health tax waiting in the wings which would affect only spirits that were more 30% alcohol by volume.
That would hit Scotch but would not affect local Korean Soju.
Scotch trade
According to Mr Hewitt, the Korean health tax was only kept at bay because it was internationally illegal to use such devices to interfere with price mechanisms.
Scotland might, inadvertently, create a precedent, potentially affecting £600m in trade for Scotch.
Mr Mathieson disputed that. He said that, if the European Union ruled minimum pricing in Scotland was legal, then such an initiative could not be used as a global precdent.
Mr Hewitt, in turn, disputed that.
UPDATE AT 1440: Clarification re the jobs point which emerged after the committee hearing.
It now appears the assertion by Whyte and Mackay re job losses is based upon an assessment of what might happen if minimum pricing were to be introduced across the UK.
But, of course, the proposal is presently being advanced by the Scottish government. For Scotland only.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~01~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Is THIS what the BBC r reduced to?????? - aht about Glasgow City Council - people being visited in Office by Police etc etc etc - still Brian never mind - this rubbish is enough for Labour - lets have a blog on the latest midge count - almost as relevant.
Complain about this comment
Questions (easy ones!)
Is it in the drinks industry's interest to sell LESS or MORE alcohol?
Is it in the nation's interest to consume LESS or MORE alcohol?
If the drinks industry suggest alternatives to minimum pricing as more effective measures in cutting Scotland's alcohol problem, then rest assured they believe minimum pricing will reduce consumption more than their so called "better" alternatives.
Complain about this comment
Some in the alcohol industry oppose minimum pricing some agree. If the prospect of job loses are correct, then surely this has to be weighed against the good that this proposal might do, the whole drive is to rebalance Scotlands unhealthy relationship with alcohol. As in any change effort things change, but as long as we are moving in the right direction then this surely has to be a price worth paying. The submission seems mainly to do with own brand whisky, which is the sort of drink we actually have to be tackling, comparatively cheap and comparatively strong.
Complain about this comment
Well done to the poster who predicted this blog !!
Gives me the chance to yet again reveal that former First Minister 'Jack McClubClass' has offered to fly around the globe in search of the 'Scarlet Pimpurcell'.
Complain about this comment
It's disgraceful seeing the drinks industry lobby for this proposal to be thrown out. They have enjoyed unparalleled wealth and prosperity at this nations obsession with alcohol and they don't want the party to end.
I couldn't care less if 200 to 300 jobs go at some factory that knocks out fire-water by the bucketload - the truth is that no-one who enjoys whisky responsibly could ever say they drink the cheapest of the cheap for enjoyment.
My personal favourite is laphroig, an Islay malt that is extremely peaty and not cheap at £21 a bottle (average) If I ever drink cheap, blended rubbish like Whyte & MacKay - it's because there's nothing else to drink and I'm being sociable. I suspect those who drink it more frequently do so because of its price.
Poor people DO NOT have the right to cheap alcohol. They have the right to food, water and shelter and according to the stupid HYS poll last week, internet access *rolls eyes* Any moron who is spending more of his money on drink than food and clothing for him and his family has a problem and Whyte and Mackay are not helping in the slightest.
I'd rather see 300 people looking for a new job if it meant thousands of families were saved from the pox of cheap drink.
Complain about this comment
For many years the Scots have had a drink problem. For some it may suit that our citizens stay drunk and oblivious to the problems that Scotland faces.
The SNP are doing the only thing that will work.
We have tried education we have tried good advice. Now we must hit people where it hurts in the pocket. If we do not wake up as a nation soon we will have no nation to call Scotland.
Up the price as much as possible.
It will not effect the people who only have a wee dram of a good Scotch it will hopefully stop the people who buy supermarket lost leaders and resell them in small shops and do not pay tax on them or vat.
It will hurt the young people who buy cheap alcohol to get as drunk as possible as quickly as possible and cause chaos in A+E departments.
If the other parties cared for Scotland instead of votes they would back this
Complain about this comment
Usual smoke & mirrors, this industry is just as secretive as the UK security services. The truth is staring you in the face! Its all about consumption, always has been. Similar to the hypocracy of industry and government in relation to tobacco products some decades ago!
Complain about this comment
#1 We're past caring when it comes to predicting what comes out of your pie-hole.
Complain about this comment
"1. At 12:00pm on 10 Mar 2010, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
In response to this, I predict unconditional support for the SNP and endless abuse of everyone else...."
Afraid you have it wrong there - I strongly disagree with this proposal, which will punish those of us who drink responsibly, whilst having I suspect little effect on the heavy drinkers, other than to hit their pockets, thus leading to even more misery for their families who will have less money for food, clothes etc.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
What a wonderful argument for full fiscal autonomy, Brian.
The details on health issues have yet to be fully clarified in the courts but the European Commission takes the view that:
To achieve the objective of reducing tobacco consumption, the Commission advocates increasing the excise duty on cigarettes. See here.
Of course you're aware that to do that would require excise duties in Scotland being different from those in the rest of the UK. Glad to see you pushing for more devolution than Calman dares - a courageous stance given your employer.
Complain about this comment
I find this so called debate becoming tiresome, the trotting out of the same old rubbish, the standard lines “it will cost jobs” this one from “Whyte & Mackay” really is the end.
This is using fear tactics best left to the politicians’ who are amongst the most ignorant across the spectrum.
Whyte & Mackay are a branch of an international conglomerate, and with a branch mentality to boot.
Fact, we here in Scotland have a major health problem with alcohol, in attempting to sort out that problem something has to happen, minimum pricing could be the answer, prohibition has never worked so that line can be dismissed out of hand.
Can we have some constructive input to this debate now, rather than the negative responses we are constantly getting from neither those who can neither keep their zips shut nor their addictions in check?
Complain about this comment
I spent most of my working life working in criminal Courts, and daily saw the havoc wreaked by uncontrolled drinking, both on the drinkers, and those affected by them. I wonder if RE could suggest what his plan for dealing the pain and misery caused by alcohol is? I, for one, am happy to see that a responsible Government, composed of grown-ups, is looking for an answer, in stark contrast to its predecessors' inaction.
I doubt the banning of cheap booze is the whole answer, but surely anyone can see that it might well be a part of an answer?
I hope RE does not consider himself abused by this message, and I look forward to his constructive suggestions.
I fear that the loss 0f 200 - 300 jobs in the cheap hooch industry is something we will have to accept as a cost of the task of creating a sober Scotland. Some particular help in finding work for these folk might well be appropriate
Complain about this comment
PS to my #122 on the previous thread
"Any bets on how long it will be before another comes along?"
It took nearly two hours before the same old "Salmond accused" was back as the Democracy Live insert on the main Scotland politics page. Is this a record?
Complain about this comment
from the previous blog...
#123
"Opinions have got to be heard from all sides of the argument. You cannot dismiss the views simply because they are not in agreement with the government."
I am not dismissing the views. but they are blatantly obvious, and being given a prominance out of proportion to their actual meaning.
The amusing thing actually is that the spokesman for Whyte and Mackay actually made the SNP's point for them: Due to the price increase (giving them more profit per bottle by the way) they would have to bottle less of the stuff, and therfor less staff/facilities would be needed for this.
In other words: Less alcohol would be consumed by the Scottish population.
Result!
What got on my T*ts was the convoluted wasy that this was made to be an attack on the moderate drinkers only. This was done through citing only a single possible scenario, out of many (and the only scenario that is relevant to labour's case).
Lets get this straight:
the whyte and Mackay spokesman said that the minimum pricing would cause them to have to bottle less cheap alcohol.
The aim of the minimum pricing is to reduce the availability of cheap alcohol.
Yet somehow the BBC paint this as an attack on the minimum pricing policy.
Very strange.
john
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
No comment that the Korean scheme is illegal because it discriminates against different types of alcohol, whereas minimum pricing affects ALL alcohol.
John
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This latest from BT reinforces something that I posted during the latter stages of his previous attempt at a blog. I repeat a version below, as it is relevant. There is a definite attempt at controlling the agenda here. Let's talk about something, anything but Labour issues; that smacks of control. This is as bad as anything that goes on in Russia.
We are living in a Controlled Democracy, like it or not. In fact, it's more subtle than that; here are a couple of definitions to illustrate my point.
Democracy is the political orientation of those who favour government by the people or by their elected representatives.
Theocracy is a government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
We are neither; we are closer to the following;
A Crimocracy; which I will define, based on recent evidence as;
A combination or acceptance of a governing party or relationship with the institutions as a fundamental datum, based on mafia style such as having a form of justice of its own and uses relationships with the media to further it's own agenda. That agenda based on the narrow interests of a small minority of the population.
Something like that, but it stinks however you define it. I agree with Online Ed's comment - when you can actually predict the subject matter from a Journalist, even with our rather cynical spectacles on, it all becomes rather pathetic. What I cannot get my head around, is what is in it for people like BT and his friends at BBC Scotland? They are simply digging a very big hole for themselves. They will have a reduction in viewer numbers. Incredible!
Complain about this comment
Can someone please post some abuse, the first poster is looking rather foolish.
Actually, does suggesting he is looking foolish count?
Wee 'Scoop' has emerged on the minimum price story - go on Glenn !!
BBC going large on the medical record story - you know things are bad for Labour when the media are reduced to that old chestnut. It'll
One record !!
Finally:
Anyone notice that whatever the SNP say on the debates scandal is always presented as 'SNP considering legal action' and not actually the substance of what was said?
Look out for the Newsnet Scotland website going live this Friday.
Complain about this comment
# ronreagan....Your right this is tame stuff indeed.The BBC and the MSM appear to be bodyswerving PURCELLGATE, TRAVELGATE and MARQUEEGATE (dont you jist luv the word "Gate" Iknow the media do)
The Herald still havent allowed any letters to be printed on the subject.
And who from the media attended PURCELLS "Friday lunch Club"???
and where oh where has SPUD gone ???? Sunnier climes perhaps.???
You can bet if it was an SNP politician the story would be on the front page every day.
Complain about this comment
OK, anyone else notice the BIG IF ?
"[Mr Beard said....]based on an example of 50 pence, a bottle of own label whisky would rise by 37%, to £14.
He said that would mean own label products losing their "competitive advantage" and having to compete with brands such as Famous Grouse and Bell's Whisky. "
Last I heard, the proposed unit price was 40p per unit ?
So, IF the Unit price was 20% Higher than proposed, there MAY be job losses ? Is the market for own-brand going to disappear overnight ?
IF "own brand" are forced to compete with "premium" products like Grouse, will the consumption of Grouse rise or fall in the absence of competitively priced "own brand" ?
I have said several times and maintain that Minimum Unit Pricing is the wrong way to go to tackle the Alcohol problem that is Scotland's. But at least the SNP Government are trying something ! I don't think that it's going to work but hey, where's the alternatives from the so-called "opposition" ?
Have we heard from The Grey Man's "Alcohol Commission" (Remit: We don't know what we want the answer to be but it had better not be anything that the SNP suggest) on this issue.
Maybe Joke is off on a fact-finding trip to see how the nations of the world deal with the bevvy ? HEY JOKE, how about examining how the Electors of Motherwell and Wishaw do it !
Complain about this comment
10. At 12:34pm on 10 Mar 2010, Sheneval wrote:
Sheneval said:
"1. At 12:00pm on 10 Mar 2010, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
In response to this, I predict unconditional support for the SNP and endless abuse of everyone else...."
Afraid you have it wrong there - I strongly disagree with this proposal, which will punish those of us who drink responsibly, whilst having I suspect little effect on the heavy drinkers, other than to hit their pockets, thus leading to even more misery for their families who will have less money for food, clothes etc."
So - free rotgut on prescription for irresponsible drinkers is the way forward according to your logic?
I think we need to try to solve the problem, rather than encourage alcohol abuse with cheap booze.
Complain about this comment
Minimum pricing won't work. The true alcoholic will drink 19 instead of 20 units per day; the social drinker will mutter under their breath about the 'nanny state' while supping their customary dram.
Complain about this comment
To #10
You are already paying the price for this through taxes for the amount per head that alchol abuse costs in Scotland.
This is a bold move by the SNP to attempt to tackle the problem, whilst not a panacea to the problem it is disappointing that other parties are not supporting this - appearing to put party politics ahead of trying to solve one of Scotland's cultural issues.
Complain about this comment
Paints nearly dry.
Lucky there's nothing relavent on political blogs these days.
Complain about this comment
afternoon ,#23 chiefy1724, as well as quoting the wrong example of 50p as you point out we had the usual IF, MIGHT, MAYBE,MAY AND COULD
we then of course had an old Herald trick
use UK figures when talking about a Scottish only issue.
poor journalism ?or do they believe we are all idiots?
Sid
Complain about this comment
Alcohol prices in supermarkets throughout the UK are already higher than much of Europe (excluding Scandinavia). The pricing will probably matter very little to the amount consumed, more to the amount spent.
Can anyone tell me where the extra cost goes to (which I may have missed here)? The government? The seller? The manufacturer?
Complain about this comment
for auld bob on the previous thread
Can
Any
Listeners
Left
Keep
All
Yawns
Engulfed.
Complain about this comment
"24. At 1:13pm on 10 Mar 2010, obviousalias wrote:
So - free rotgut on prescription for irresponsible drinkers is the way forward according to your logic?"
Wow - did I say that - sorry, I must have been drunk at the time.
"I think we need to try to solve the problem, rather than encourage alcohol abuse with cheap booze."
I agree that the problem of problem drinkers needs to be tackled - I just believe that this won't do anything to help - if you have other ideas that might work, perhaps you would air them rather than trying to put words in my mouth.
Complain about this comment
25. Lime Candy
"Minimum pricing won't work. The true alcoholic will drink 19 instead of 20 units per day; the social drinker will mutter under their breath about the 'nanny state' while supping their customary dram."
It may well work - it puts a toll on the road from the latter to the former.
Complain about this comment
Can any journo-huggers on the blog tell me who Plaid & the SNP's letter regarding the bbc bias will have gone out to? I notice the bbc (wales) article Anger from Plaid and SNP over televised debates talks about it going to 'international press bureau heads' -is that just newspaper bosses in different countries, or news agencies, both, more?.
Complain about this comment
Could
All
Local
Labourites
Keep
Annoying
Yokels
Exiled
Good game Sid!
Certainly better than the offering above!
Harry Stottle, glad the paints dry!
Come and play!
Complain about this comment
#8 Redrobb
"Similar to the hypocracy of industry and government in relation to tobacco products "
Actually I would disagree with the "some decades ago! part of this statement.
A new potentially life saving product has came to the market which is described as a safe alternative to smoking; they are called Electronic Cigarettes.
They pose no cancer risks, heart disease risks etc, yet our UK government is intent on banning them in July this year; the only logical reason I can find is due to the large revenues Westminster would lose on the taxation of tobacco if 'ecigs' were to get popular.
This says to me that the same hypocrisy described as from decades ago still, indeed, exists today.
As well as typical, absolutely disgraceful in my opinion!
Complain about this comment
Minimum pricing will do nothing to affect those who may suffer health problems through alcohol abuse.
It may reduce overall consumption but it will be from those on the fringes of the drinking population who are the least likely to suffer health issues caused by alcohol!
Do not get me wrong, if I thought that minimum pricing would make one iota of difference to Scotland's drinking culture at the sharp end I would be 100% behind it, but unfortunately I am of the opinion that price is a red herring when it comes to alcohol abuse!!
It will not effect pub prices, it will not bother hardened alcoholics or the Saturday night warriors who have more disposable income than much of the rest of the population.
What is the point behind punishing responsible drinkers in order for politicians to be able to claim that overall consumption has been reduced when this in itself means nothing!
Lets face it, for many in Scotland from the weetin o a bairns heed to the wake at his funeral for most, life's special moments all involve alcohol!
Northern Europeans like to drink alcohol and putting a few pennies on a bottle of grog is not going to change that fact!
By the way, I wouldn't drink Laphroig if i could get it for free!!
Complain about this comment
Now if a few of these companies would turn some of their production capacity to producing ethanol instead of alcohol they would find a ready market for it in the fuel sector.
Complain about this comment
10. Sheneval
If it works though it'll not 'punish' you but 'reward' you.
Complain about this comment
This is actually a more important issue than the dodgy goings on in Glasgow City Chambers, the Friday Lunch Club, the Red Rose Dinners and all that. For sure, there is a very interesting cast of characters involved in that one: the disappearing and surprisingly well-resourced Mr Purcell, Glasgow City Council, the Labour party, different police forces, property developers, leading media figures, drug dealers, night club operators, security consultants etc etc. It is a truism that power corrupts. Perhaps an award-winning reporter might feel the urge to investigate such a scene and bust it wide open...although for some reason, I am not holding my breath.
But excess alcohol consumption is a chronic blight on our whole society. The apparent determination of the Labour party to minimise this, and oppose a common sense response to it (er, put the price of cheap booze up) continues to mystify me. Apparently Labour loves to call for harsh action against criminals, but not for harsh action against excessive drinking, which is at the root of a lot of criminality on this country. Go and check the statistics on what percentage of prisoners were drunk at the time they committed their offence... Is that the same Labour party which for decades would not allow licensed premises to operate on council property? Why on earth do they continue to oppose putting up the price of 10% ABV supercider? This is MSPs from places like Airdrie, Dumbarton and Springburn we are talking about here. Do they ever walk down the streets of their own constituencies?
Complain about this comment
The Government's strategy to counter the ill-effects of alcohol are broad-based and rooted in research of what works and what is likely to work best.
Pricing is one single element - alongside education, health promotion, enforcement and access. All aspects are addressed with a degree of intelligence and without political posture.
The sad reality is that Scotland's love affair with booze is getting worse.
Alcohol is a drug, an addictive one - and as individuals and as a society we are consuming more than is good for us.
Whether it is violence, foetal syndrome, accidents - road and fire deaths, cirrhosis of the liver, dementia etc etc - all are getting worse becaus ewe generally drink too much or because drink is taken at inappropriate times.
There may well be some job losses.
Perhaps Whyte & MacKay's think that we should subsidise their production so that we can employ more A&E Surgeons to stitch more people's faces together?
Alcohol should not be cheaper than fizzy pop.
Slainte Mhor
Complain about this comment
Dazzlingpuddock wrote: "Do not get me wrong, if I thought that minimum pricing would make one iota of difference to Scotland's drinking culture at the sharp end I would be 100% behind it, but unfortunately I am of the opinion that price is a red herring when it comes to alcohol abuse!!
"
I point to the keywords in your statement above... "If I thought" and "Opinion"...
Read this... http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/professional-Issues/europe/Documents/minimum-pricing-paper.[dont put these brackets but it is an adobe document so instead, you need to put the correct 3 letters here... you know what they are!]
Now, your opinion is just opinion, but proper research suggests your opinion is incorrect!
Complain about this comment
#36 dazzlingpuddock: Correct in every aspect - and blindingly obvious.
It needs to be made clear that opposing this idea is not any sort of attack on the SNP. That party put forward an idea to tackle a real problem, which is more than others did. Full marks to them. But after consideration, that it was meant to receive, it now looks impractical and potentially ineffective on several levels. From my own experience of living with and working with alcoholics and binge drinkers, and meeting professionally some people in truly desperate straits, I know it is preposterous to suggest that another pound or two on the price will dissuade them.
Any professional in alcohol abuse prevention will tell you the solution begins and ends with persuading the drinker that he/she has a problem. That is where money and effort should go.
Complain about this comment
#36 dazzlingpuddock
Please explain how this minimum pricing is punishing responsible drinkers.
And further, what is your evidence for your other assertions in your first two sentences:- Minimum pricing will do nothing to affect those who may suffer health problems through alcohol abuse. and
It may reduce overall consumption but it will be from those on the fringes of the drinking population who are the least likely to suffer health issues caused by alcohol!
If your first assertion is that responsible drinkers will be able to get less alcohol for a given sum how will irresponsible drinkers not be affected in the same way? Is there not a benefit in reducing the alcohol consumption of irresponsible drinkers? Is there not a benefit in making it more expensive for those who might become irresponsible drinkers to get into that position?
As your last line indicates that you are not teetotal, do yourself a favour and go, buy and drink some of these cheap alcohols, then give us again the benefit of your thoughts.
Complain about this comment
DazzlingPuddock,
I think you are right, that it is those on the fringes of alcohol consumption rather than hardened alcoholics who will reduce consumption the most.
But reduced consumption is reduced consumption - and according to medical advice - that's generally a good thing.
Alcoholics, and folk with chronic liver disease are not made overnight. They drift through the phases over time. Perhaps minimum pricing is designed to slow that drift and reduce the numbers of future dangerous drinkers, and alcohol related health disorders, rather than cure current alcoholics?
Is it not the case that minimum prices may help as follows?:-
An occasional tippler may become tee-total?
A regular, but not excessive drinker may become an occasional tippler?
Someone consuming over the recommended levels may become someone under the recommended levels?
Someone heading for liver failure in their 30's may delay it until their 50s?
Someone heading for liver failure in their 50s may never get it?
etc.
Ask the doctors about the increase in liver disease over the last decade alone. Not among alcoholics, but among those who consider themselves responsible / moderate / social drinkers.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear! What a worry for the innocent Scottish jaikies. Worry not ! Gordie is having a budget before the election, so look for special allowances in your invalidity to cover the extra cost of your favourite cider or vino. Maybe even free holidays on the Costas to sample the local brews can be arranged if you promise to be waken when the Labour taxi comes to take you and your wee dug to the polling station.
Complain about this comment
Brig,
See my #44
You're right. It won't stop an alcoholic moving heaven and earth to get his/her fix.
I don't think it is aimed at the alcoholics of today though, but in reducing the alcoholics of tomorrow by slowing the drift towards addiction and harmful levels.
Let's say over the next 10 years or so, it might just reverse the massive increase in alcohol related health issues that has occurred over the last 10 years; a period where alcohol has become relatively much cheaper and much more accessible, and consumption has increased proportionately.
Do you think it might help in those terms?
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Here's a new proposal which solve all of the problems.
How about changing the system so that you can't buy alcohol unless you have vouchers in a ration book that you receive with your wages (or benefits) each month.
If you don't have any vouchers left, then you don't get any alcohol (this would apply to MPs, MSPs and journalists as well).
You wouldn't need minimum pricing then would you.
I'm sure rationing is within the law, since it seemed to work in the early 1940s.
Complain about this comment
#37,
Sorry the high school chemist in me has to say that the alcohol we drink is mainly ethanol. the rest is water (with trace methanol depending on the quality).
But I know what you meant.
John
Complain about this comment
Great game Sid.
I give you......
Could
All
Labour
Lackeys
Keep
Auditing
Your
Expenses
Complain about this comment
The most popular pub for younger people in my area charges top dollar for drinks and even makes an admission charge later in the evening. Any determined drinker could get legless for half the price in perfectly decent pubs in the area. But these pubs are struggling because their clients walk out early to avoid the admission charge at the other place. It seems the star attraction can charge what it likes. And there is always a queue to get in, even in freezing rain, while 50 yards away good pubs lie empty. Minimum price? You must be joking!
Complain about this comment
#43 Handclapping and #44 dear_ wendy
Please understand that a problem drinker is an entirely different animal, so to speak than someone who drinks too much on occasion!
Problem drinkers will not react to pricing mechanisms in the same way that someone who is not addicted to alcohol will react!
A problem drinker is not a moderate drinker who happens to drink more!!!
Why would anyone other than a member of a temperance society feel the need to encourage an occasional tippler to become tee total?
As an aside,
The rise in Liver disease also correlates almost exactly with the rise in the use of paracetamol but as correlation does not and never will equal causation this is irrelevant but I would say that more research is required!
I am well aware of the RCP and Sheffield Uni research and feel it is flawed on a number of fronts!
We already pay more for alcohol than most of the rest of the world and our problems with "the demon drink" are not unique to us though certain organisations would like you to believe that Scotland is the worst!!
Complain about this comment
The North British branch of the labour party will be left with egg on their face once again when their masters down south decide to stop window dressing for a while and and implement the SNP's policies down south like they've done so often in the past.
Complain about this comment
#46 dear_wendy: Your motives are the best, and that's got to be applauded, but I fear you may be a little naive in your "steps to alcoholism" post. Some of these kids are in their mid teens and already addicted. For some of them a "social" addiction (the need to be one of the crowd) can become a physical addiction before they know it. They must be reached individually by those who would help them. Too often, they go home to find their parents similarly legless. A catch-all solution like minimum pricing is just another hike in the cost of living (dying?) to be absorbed by them.
It is possible that the current recession, which, believe me, few in Scotland have felt yet, will (after the election when the new government absolutely must increase taxes, reduce services and enforce joblessness) could have a positive effect in cutting booze consumption. But I'm not holding my breath.
Complain about this comment
In real terms alcohol is a fraction of the price it was before the war. This cheap alcohol can be bought in a multitude of venues compared to the restricted outlets of 70 years ago, and was pretty much available around the clock until the SNP introduced more restrictive off-sales hours. Additionally most of us have a much higher proportion of our income available for 'recreational' activities. Can anyone look at these factors and say they have NOTHING to do with the steady increase in alcohol related crime, illness and social decay?
It amazes me that those who are quite happy to encompass ID cards, CCTV at every street corner and imprisonment for 90 days without charge, can with a straight face pin their flag of personal liberty to being able to buy a can of lager for 30p.
Complain about this comment
Oh Brian !!
Until recently I felt you were a political commentator worth listening to. But you seem to now only comment on the politics that suit YOU. Has there been nothing going on in Glasgow City Chambers recently? How could a commentator of your experience have missed it. Makes me wonder what else you don't tell us.
Complain about this comment
Good of you to give such a large part of your article over to simply re-stating the views of the alcohol industry.
Complain about this comment
There is a sad lack of factual material imformimg this debate, a list of simple points illustrates:
1. Does anyone here dispute that putting the price of cigarettes up has helped to reduce cigarette consumption?
2. Has anyone actually looked at the prices of items like a bottle of wine or a branded whisky (largely unaffected by 40p minimum price), a Tesco Value bottle of gin (up about £2.50 to £9.60), a 2 litre bottle of white cider (up from £1.28 to £3.80 approximately).
3. That the standard method of getting smashed now is to tank up on cheap supermarket drink before hitting the clubs just sober enough to get past the bouncers - shouldn't this be stamped on, for all sorts of reasons.
4. That if value brands of gin and vodka are increased in price it will make it easier to sell (currently) higher priced cheap whisky brands, so their consumption will increase.
5. The research commissioned at Sheffield University that showed that initially over 100 lives would be saved a year if the minimum price is set at 40p, that this would increase over time, and will result in substantial savings for the NHS in Scotland
6. That Whyte and Mackay have just admitted that the 200 job loss assessment is based on minimum pricing across the WHOLE OF THE UK (not just Scotland).
7. That minimum pricing will redress the current price imbalance between supermarkets and licensed premises that is leading so many pubs to close.
8. That if as suggested supermarkets are rated for business rates the same as licensed premises the additional money they make will be diverted to Councils and not to the shareholders.
Just a few, of many, points that appear to be little understood on this blog
Complain about this comment
Problem solved???
Complain about this comment
As well as having Monday's chalked off his diary due to the 'emotional hardships' of a long and strenuous weekend, one wonders whether Mr Purcell's weekend started with the Friday Lunch club? Tiring three day week that.
Monday = Hungover
Tuesday = Close a few primary schools, blame SNP
Wednesday = Open hairdressers, blame SNP for hair loss in men.
Wednesday = Attend council meeting, blame SNP for having to work.
Thursday = Limber up for Friday's big lunch date, blame SNP for cancelling GARL and pure dead hating Glasgow
Friday = Loooong lunch with friends,where we agree next weeks blame the SNP strategy.
One would think that an important person such as Donald Martin, the editor of the Glasgow Herald, would have the nous and the journalistic ability to discover who attended these Friday lunches...unless he was there himself!!!
Complain about this comment
#42 brigadierjohn
You are so absolutely right. Why didn't I think of it before, the answer lies in realising you have a problem. Now I know that the North British branch of the BBC has an aim to inform. How about a TV program or better yet a series like CrimeWatch except on drink in Scotland. You could get the producer to bankroll a crate of cyder for an eighteen year old lassie to have a party with her friends before going to the club and follow them to the throwing up in the streets, the fights, the A+E, the courts. And the next week a lad, the week after someone with a problem, then someone who doesn't think they have and so on. And then there's all the people that they need to support them, the social work, the AA, the therapists, the counsellors.
By the time you were finished that set of programs, you could start again except she'd be nineteen now, etc. Then perhaps we might admit we have a problem and we'd not get dazzlingpuddocks unable to believe that anybody would do other than his/her moderate drinking.
Complain about this comment
#60
How come I was having my comment refused since 16:21?
Complain about this comment
25. Lime Candy
"Minimum pricing won't work. The true alcoholic will drink 19 instead of 20 units per day; the social drinker will mutter under their breath about the 'nanny state' while supping their customary dram.
"
Well, similar strategies in other nations have seemed to indicate it works, but fine. If you think this won't work, come up with alternative--something other than "more education please or let's set up a committee".
Complain about this comment
42. brigadierjohn
"Any professional in alcohol abuse prevention will tell you the solution begins and ends with persuading the drinker that he/she has a problem. That is where money and effort should go."
Isn't it ODD then that every professional organization that DOES deal with alcohol abuse came out IN FAVOR of this as a part of dealing with the problem?
Maybe you shouldn't be trying to speak for them since what you say the WOULD say and what they in fact DO say are totally at odds.
Complain about this comment
Successive Westmidden Govs have increased taxation of cigarettes to discourage use of. They have also done the same with petrol and diesel for the sake of Planet Earth. Why should alcohol be treated differently? A devolved tax system would make things a lot easier.
Complain about this comment
57. impeachblair
"There is a sad lack of factual material imformimg this debate, a list of simple points illustrates:
1. Does anyone here dispute that putting the price of cigarettes up has helped to reduce cigarette consumption?
2. Has anyone actually looked at the prices of items like a bottle of wine or a branded whisky (largely unaffected by 40p minimum price), a Tesco Value bottle of gin (up about £2.50 to £9.60), a 2 litre bottle of white cider (up from £1.28 to £3.80 approximately).
3. That the standard method of getting smashed now is to tank up on cheap supermarket drink before hitting the clubs just sober enough to get past the bouncers - shouldn't this be stamped on, for all sorts of reasons.
4. That if value brands of gin and vodka are increased in price it will make it easier to sell (currently) higher priced cheap whisky brands, so their consumption will increase.
5. The research commissioned at Sheffield University that showed that initially over 100 lives would be saved a year if the minimum price is set at 40p, that this would increase over time, and will result in substantial savings for the NHS in Scotland
6. That Whyte and Mackay have just admitted that the 200 job loss assessment is based on minimum pricing across the WHOLE OF THE UK (not just Scotland).
7. That minimum pricing will redress the current price imbalance between supermarkets and licensed premises that is leading so many pubs to close.
8. That if as suggested supermarkets are rated for business rates the same as licensed premises the additional money they make will be diverted to Councils and not to the shareholders.
Just a few, of many, points that appear to be little understood on this blog"
There are some excellent points. Thank you for making them.
Complain about this comment
#50
The " most popular pub" is losing the early evening business because the crowd is out getting legless in the cheap pubs or with their carry outs before they move on. I am sure the "popular pub" would like that early evening business - should they reduce their prices?
Complain about this comment
#54 ambi: You cannot win an argument by rubbishing your opponents, or, worse, misrepresenting their views. I don't see anyone denying a link between social changes and crime figures. Nor is anyone claiming it's their "liberty" to buy cheap drink.
All we are saying is that a "catch-all" solution is likely to be ineffective where an answer is most needed.
I hope we all want a solution? Or are people's broken lives just another excuse to make cheap political propaganda? The Labour Party seem to be doing that, but you can't just defend something because your opponent attacks it. Try to rise above the politicisation and and consider the issue alone. Such cool detachment might even enhance voter appeal. :-)
Complain about this comment
108. gentlemanheelander
"102 My comment at 69 also mentioned that certain female journalist, also still awaiting moderation. D'ye think they're waiting for their lawyer to get up?"
I got an email from the BBC this morning (my time) informing me that even mentioning that a certain 'Lassie' has questions about what happened in Glasgow and who had GOOD REASON to KNOW about it might be defamatory. My advice is: if you don't like being told what questions you should or should or shouldn't even be allowed to ASK you might well want to go over to that Lassie's blog.
There is a saying in my own country: Follow the money. Her question about who benefited is an excellent one. I won't say benefited from what. Hush! BBC says we can't mention it.
Complain about this comment
No 23 wrote: At 1:12pm on 10 Mar 2010, Chiefy1724 wrote:
“OK, anyone else notice the BIG IF ?
"[Mr Beard said....]based on an example of 50 pence, a bottle of own label whisky would rise by 37%, to £14.
He said that would mean own label products losing their "competitive advantage" and having to compete with brands such as Famous Grouse and Bell's Whisky.
Last I heard, the proposed unit price was 40p per unit ?”
_______________________________________________________________
IF you read the actual Bill you will see that no price is mentioned. It just says it will be up to Ministers to decide and Nicola Sturgeon has said that they are looking at several scenarios e.g. 40p 50p or 60p and the final choice wil in part depend on what is said as the bill progresses through Parliament.
This discussion may be academic if, as has been mooted in the financial columns, Mr Darling increases the duty on alcohol primarily to increase tax revenue, but it will be spun as the UK Government tackling the health and social issues associated with alcohol.
While the loss of jobs is to be regretted anything which reduces consumption and by extension alcohol related health problems and their costs, which run into billions of pounds, is to be welcomed. Health problems by the way which affect the unborn as well: Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.
As to the moderate/responsible drinkers. Moderate your consumption such that a week’s intake lasts for two weeks and you will SAVE money and your health will benefit too. Even moderate consumption over time will adversely affect your health.
But the Bill is not just about minimum pricing. It also includes steps to stop supermarkets selling alcohol as a ‘loss leader’ and cheap 2 for 1 etc. as well as giving Local Authorities to raise the age at which spirits can be bought.
Complain about this comment
#47... Hugh...
There was a war on.
I don't think rationing would fly in this day in age, but your ideas on the right of provision has merit.
Complain about this comment
People here should understand the policy is not directed specifically for alcoholics, it's specifically targetting individuals who consume far more then their suppose too. You can do that without technically being legless 24/7.
Complain about this comment
#60 handclapping: Or, how about just having a serious word with your over-indulging friend, try to persuade him/her that there are other ways to get enjoyment, that nobody is impressed with drunkenness, and having the courage to press on towards the help agencies despite inevitable knockbacks? Is that just too brave for you? Or too much effort? Do you have a friend?
The idea that you can solve serious social problems by government edict is just laughable. Your attempt to trivialise the issue actually makes you part of the problem. But, don't worry. I don't expect you to grasp that.
Complain about this comment
Let me ask a question not about drinking, if I might. (And I consider that anyone who can't see a relationship between cheap hooch and young people going and and smashed before hitting the clubs simply doesn't WANT to but that's neither here nor there)
Mr. Brown has announced the date for the budget which apparently makes May 6 as a date for a GE a near certainty (which I don't understand but such are the hazards of being an American ;-) ).
Now that makes me think of the relative recovery of the British Labour Party in recent polling results across the country. Now this seeming recovery baffles me a bit not because I dislike Gordon Brown (which I admittedly do) but because I see no sign of it anywhere. I post here and one other place regularly but I lurk several others which are not necessarily of the same political bent. I see NO SIGN of this increased popularity in what people say. Frankly, except for our own Former-President Bush, I have rarely seen a man quite so loathed well, and except for the every-loatheable Tony Blair.
So what I suspect (obviously only suspect) is that the apparent recovery is a "we don't like Labour at all but we distrust the Tories even more" kind of recovery. My question is--how many people who feel this way will actually go out and VOTE? Perhaps a lot to keep the Tories out? Or perhaps only a few because since they REALLY don't like either one why bother? Or a rise in other parties because when they walk in the booth, they can't stand to put an X by either name? Or some possibility I'm not thinking of?
Any thoughts? (apologies for bringing *gasp* politics ;) )
Complain about this comment
31. Sheneval
"I agree that the problem of problem drinkers needs to be tackled - I just believe that this won't do anything to help - if you have other ideas that might work, perhaps you would air them rather than trying to put words in my mouth."
No, since YOU are the one opposing any action that has been proposed, it uis up to YOU to air alternatives or else you are opposing this just to oppose it. You think minimum pricing won't help (no one proposes that it is a full solution, merely a step).
So propose SOMETHING.
Complain about this comment
31. At 2:10pm on 10 Mar 2010, Sheneval wrote:
"24. At 1:13pm on 10 Mar 2010, obviousalias wrote:
So - free rotgut on prescription for irresponsible drinkers is the way forward according to your logic?"
Wow - did I say that - sorry, I must have been drunk at the time.
"I think we need to try to solve the problem, rather than encourage alcohol abuse with cheap booze."
I agree that the problem of problem drinkers needs to be tackled - I just believe that this won't do anything to help - if you have other ideas that might work, perhaps you would air them rather than trying to put words in my mouth."
I still believe that the logical conclusion of your remarks is as I suggested - I wasn't putting words in your mouth, just extending your argument. The idea of keeping drink cheap so that drunks can feed their families strikes me as absurd. By the same token - no fines for drunks, for the same reason?
Price control alone won't work, and I haven't claimed that it would. Much of the problem, as others have remarked, is the habit of tanking up on cheap booze before setting out for a night. I'd suggest serious restrictions of off-sales of alcohol, so that as much drinking as possible is confined to licenced premises, run by a licencee with a vested interest in maintaining order on pain of losing his licence. Perhaps off-sale to the under 25s should be banned as a start.
All offences with a drink related component should lead to a sentence requiring some form of alcohol counselling. Forfeiture of vehicles involved in such offending should be the norm. A programme of Community Service work to be carried out on weekend evenings, and at the time of the football matches that provoke so much violence could be devised. I like the idea of these people picking up litter from the roadside at the time they would otherwise be drinking, beating their partners, driving dangerously, and all the other nonsense.
Complain about this comment
Let's not forget that this is a Health measure designed (within the limited powers of the Scottish Parliament) to reduce the overall level of alcohol consumption in the population.
The question of "problem" drinkers - whether jaikies or young people socialising in pubs is a different issue.
Complain about this comment
67. brigadierjohn
"Try to rise above the politicisation and and consider the issue alone. Such cool detachment might even enhance voter appeal. :-)"
Rather two-faced advice from someone with your record of ad hominem attacks on other posters.
Complain about this comment
#64 Gavin Lessells
"Successive Westmidden Govs have increased taxation of cigarettes to discourage use of. They have also done the same with petrol and diesel for the sake of Planet Earth."
That, I'm afraid, is an outright lie.
The government applies the same fuel duty on Diesel as it does on vegetable oil. That's right, vegetable oil. It's a little known fact that a few years ago some citizens in Wales were buying GALLONS of vegetable oil at 26p a litre from Asda to use in thier vehicles instead of £1.10 buying diesel. HMRC duly stepped in and ended that little party and now, should you decide to buy vegetable oil for your car, your duty bound to pay the fuel duty on the oil you use, namely 94p per litre.
So, why don't you tell me again who cares about Planet Earth?
If this government or any of the previous governemnts for that matter ever really cared about the country's health instead of the money it makes, it would have banned cigarettes outright instead of hiking the tax every couple of years. This is a FACT.
p.s. It would also not be acticvely seeking to criminalise the "electronic cigarette" which is threatening to completely wipe out the tobacco industry within the next 10 years.
Complain about this comment
Minimum pricing on its own will not solve the problem. There has to be a multi-pronged approach to the issues of alcohol.
Minimum pricing will not stop the binge drinkers. It will not stop the alcoholics. It will not stop the tonic-wine-enhanced-with-caffeine brigade. But it will reduce the amount that can be consumed.
Education is another essential approach. At all ages. Not a "don't drink" but "drink in moderation" approach.
Stiff community penalties is another. Get those charged with drunk and disorderly out cleaning the streets or whatever at the weekend.
Harsher penalties for those who abuse emergency staff via drink. By that I mean high fines and if necessary, costs with dealing with the individual concerned.
Alcohol issues are relevant across the UK as a whole, not just Scotland and certainly not just Glasgow.
Complain about this comment
#72 dear john
Of course I have no friends. How could I post on here morning, noon and night if I had friendships to cultivate. And did your personalised counselling service work? How brave of you! What an effort you must have put in! Do you have any friends left or are they all telling you there are other ways to get enjoyment?
I am entirely in agreement with you that the idea that you can solve serious social problems by government edict is just laughable. I am just sorry that you failed to grasp that publicising just how much and how bad a problem Scots have with alcohol might assist in them realising that there is a problem and engage public sympathy with the endeavours to mitigate it. Given your background in journalism I can believe in your ability to write without understanding, I had not appreciated that, in your case, you could also read without understanding.
Complain about this comment
I must confess to being rude towards Labour regarding this subject and their subsequent behaviour since with their special purposes committee I’m disappointed because, at root, I had hoped they would have been big enough to have supported the SNP proposal and at a stroke been onside for another advance in the health of the nation - as they did with the smoking regulations. Sad, that they couldn’t bring themselves to rise to the occasion.
However we may not have to wait on the outcome of the committee before we get a change. I have seen comment in the press to the effect that Mr Darling is under pressure to increase the price of a standard bottle of whisky (and other spirits) to circa £21 in one fell swoop. If he did, or even if he did only half of that, Labour (Scotland branch) would be off the hook for spirits but what about litres of cider and other hooch? Presumably the budget will take care of them too?
What then for the whisky association and the cheap (Low cost in Brian speak) whisky manufacturers? Entitled as they are to make their case regarding the unit pricing, if AD puts an escalator on their booze, what’ll the case be then?
Minimum pricing was only ever going to be one weapon in a locker to tackle our booze culture
Complain about this comment
47.
Not everyone drinks, so tea-totalers could give their ration to someone else.
Not everyone gets a wage or benefit, students or housewives for example.
Not everyone lives here, your proposal would stop a tourist from taking a bottle home with him.
Complain about this comment
75.
Forfeiture of vehicles involved in such offending should be the norm.
I don't drive so I apologise if this is a stupid question, but I saw an advert on TV that said that they can crush you car as punishment for certain offences.
If the state is going to seize people's cars, why doesn't it sell them on rather than paying someone to destroy them?
Surely even if you had to change the locks because the offender didn't give you the keys you'd make more money than crushing it.
Complain about this comment
It seems obvious that the distillers are going to fight any attempt to reduce the current lemming-like culture of over indulging, and drunkenness being socially "acceptable" - the lip-service which they now offer is pretty transparent and patently ineffective - our "leaders" must grasp the nettle and conform to the majority opinion on drunks and anti-social behaviour engendered by too much booze - either increase penalties for such behaviour -and ENFORCE the law, or price it out of the "bulk intake" culture.Either way the current situation is overstretching the police and NHS -at our expense- and needs sorting now and effectively - what are "leaders" for if not to sort things out? In the meantime I suggest that the forthcoming budget includes additional tax on booze- to be ring fenced for the wasted time of the police and NHS.
Complain about this comment
#42. brigadierjohn:
Now I do not drink alcohol and haven't done so since around 1970. Not because of any other reason than it was far too expensive and I had better things to do with the hard earned. I'm not going to let that stop me sticking my oar in, though. I agree with points on both sides of the debate but both sides are actually missing the real points. I go back to the days before Gas street-lighting was all replaced by electric power. No alcoholics kit was complete without a short length of rubber tube. They stole a bottle of milk from a doorstep, nipper up a back close, or shined up a short lamp post. Slipped the tube over the gas jet and bubbled gas through the milk then drank it. So, no price fix will prevent existing alcoholics getting a fix. That's not the point of a minimum price. It is to discourage those who drink for the effect. It will not effect the consumption of the responsible drinker who wouldn't touch the cheap stuff anyway and the minimum priced stuff isn't drank for its taste, flavour or bouqet but for its alcoholic content.
The idea is not for an instant fix but to prevent the very young, skint, inexperianced binger from getting hooked on binge drinking in the first place. The problem lies with those who tank up for the effect and it matters not what the bloody stuff tastes like. The people who really appreciate a good single malt don't tend to overdo it too often, and when they do so it is not usually drank in some sleezy back street bar and then spill onto the streets with lowered inhibition, self restraint, judgement and self esteem.
Complain about this comment
#73. JRMacClure wrote:Any thoughts? (apologies for bringing *gasp* politics ;) )
I've knocked a lot of doors, posted lots of bits of paper through letter boxes and asked a lot of questions on doorsteps. The reasons given for voting for a certain party usually bear very little upon actual political befiefs. Many may change party loyalty for quite strange reasons. The sheer ignorance of what a particular party stands for is jaw dropping.
Complain about this comment
#83. FatherMacKenzie:
Some points - Strathclyde Police have just published information they are using a rather expensive 4X4 vehicle confiscated from criminals. Modern car locks are changed by reprogramming the on-board computer. The keys are actually electronic codes. Then there is the usual confusion fostered by UK broadcasters who make bold statements about such matters as car confiscation but never usually mention that it does not apply under Scottish law. For example, last year I drove through Lochearnhead. There was a notice outside a certain business that said, "Any car parked there would be clamped". It is illegal to do so in Scotland as Scots law classes illegal clamping as, "Demanding money with menaces". You cannot believe everything in the news.
Complain about this comment
As an intermission from the predicatable flow of this 'discussion' -
the guardian has a piece highlighting some info about social mobility from recent oecd report.
It seems that the UK has very poor social mobility compared to its peers (other developed oecd nations).
That's what comes from the two-party grip on the UK for sooooo long, conservatism from the conservatives, conservatism from NuLabour.
Tweedledum and tweedledumber; with the libdumbs trying slip into the fag-paper gap between them.
The gap between rich and poor is wider and accelerating faster than ever.
The people suffer.
And yet...
The economy is a basket case.
Business suffers.
There is no vision for future of the union that addresses this; there is no future for the union.
What is it that has anyone voting for either?
Let's get out, now.
Independence!
Complain about this comment
86. Auld Bob
"The sheer ignorance of what a particular party stands for is jaw dropping."
Many years ago, one of our neighbours voted Unionist, because she thought it meant Trade Unionist.
Complain about this comment
What does the UK stand for?
A blind eye to torture? - What and when MI5 knew about torture (as far as we have info for).
See too our former Ambassador to Uzbekistan (and recently ex Dundee Uni rector) Craig Murray on this very topic (the rest of his site is well worth reading too).
Remember, we're all in that together too!
Independence!
Complain about this comment
Previous Chancellors have raised the duty on spirits by large amounts. The first time was in 1908 or 1909 when the duty was raised by 37 per cent after being almost static for 20 or more years. The reason for the rise was to tackle the growing problem of excessive consumption. This was followed by more stringent licensing laws and other measures.
If Mr Darling increases the duty on spirits in the budget it may get the wee brothers of the hook re their opposition to minimum pricing but it still leaves them on a hook, this time of their own making.
One of their main arguments against minimum pricing was the fact that it would penalise moderate drinkers and drinkers on low incomes. Now a massive hike in duty would affect those same people that Labour MSPs were 'defending'. So will they oppose the rise in duty? If they do not voice opposition to a rise in duty then hay can be made re their previous position.
Complain about this comment
"75. At 6:09pm on 10 Mar 2010, obviousalias wrote:
I still believe that the logical conclusion of your remarks is as I suggested - I wasn't putting words in your mouth, just extending your argument."
If that is your view on logic then so be it but it is your logic not mine.
"The idea of keeping drink cheap so that drunks can feed their families strikes me as absurd."
If it was an idea then it would be absurd, I was merely pointing out one of reasons why raising the price of drink would not deter drunks from drinking and one of the consequences of doing so.
However having a debate with someone whose logical mind thinks like you do is a sheer waste of time as all you do is twist the facts to suit yourself.
Complain about this comment
"My admiration for Margaret Thatcher, by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257048/My-admiration-Margaret-Thatcher-Nick-Clegg.html
Interesting to see how this will play in Dunfermline, East Dunbarton and Inverness, among others.
Complain about this comment
93. At 11:48pm on 10 Mar 2010, oldnat wrote:
"My admiration for Margaret Thatcher, by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg"
Labour keep rolling out the old mantra of 'remember the Thatcher years' to try and frighten the populace.
What they don't tell you is that under Thatcher the manufacturing sector of our economy was reduced from 26.5% to 24% whilst under the last 13 years of labour manufacturing was reduced from 24% to 11% with the resulting chronic unemployment, destroyed communities and increase in povery and deprivation.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
PS to my #95
The 10 March 00:54 GMT version of the Drink price plan 'will cost jobs' story without the UKclarification of 14:42 GMT can currently be seen here, beginning:
"One of the world's leading Scotch whisky suppliers has warned it might have to cut hundreds of Scottish jobs, under plans for minimum drink pricing.
Whyte & Mackay said the government- proposed move would force it to compete with more expensive, premium brands.
The Asda, Morrisons and Sainsbury's supermarket chains have also expressed concern about the plan."
Complain about this comment
#80 handclapping: That's me well and truly rubbished. Well done! If nobody brighter posts later, you could be Champion Blogger of the Day.
But have you any thoughts about the issue?
Complain about this comment
#85 Auld Bob: I remember these days well. The gas also worked with original formula Coca Cola, I believe. I have witnessed men drinking eau de cologne. Once, in a tinkers' camp, I asked the minister who took me there, what the tinkers were polishing - because the site was littered with Brasso cans. He told me it was their cheap tipple. Boy reporter, aged 19, meets the real world. A few here haven't come across it yet, it would appear.
You and I have nothing to argue about on this issue. It's just a matter of emphasis. Despite the cynical point-scoring of some, our national drink problem has to be addressed on an individual level. This is most definitely not about lowering overall alcohol consumption. You can do that and still be left with all the problems.
Complain about this comment
Oddly, when removing my #95, the email sent by the mods did not include any reason. Here's my reply:
Dear moderators,
On the few previous occasions you have removed one of my messages, you have quoted the section of the house rules you consider that I broke with text like:
This decision has been made because it contains material on which the copyright
appears to be owned by someone else....
On this occasion, you give no such information, leaving me perplexed regarding the nature of my offence. It also breaks the "You will be sent an email informing you why your message has been failed" statement in your http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_breaking_rules.html
My post was entirely on topic, contained no immoderate language and the links therein simply gave text originally published by BBC Scotland on news.bbc.co.uk.
It praised Brian Taylor for his 14:40 update but criticised the website maintainers for over-writing the `Drink price plan 'will cost jobs'´ story with the `Apology over drink price claims´ one, providing links to one of the few places where the original story can still be seen.
Do not future historians need better than this, as I suggested? At the very least, could you please explain which of the rules listed on http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_house_rules.html you think I have broken?
Best Regards....
I'll post anything I get in reply.
Complain about this comment
Having recently been involved in an exchange of posts with obviousalias, I thought I might write a little something about the experience from a slightly diffrent angle:
Following the news that ‘obviousalias’ had been appointed as the SNP Minister for Logic we asked Brian Taylor our Political Editor in Scotland to interview him.
Brian - Good morning Minister, congratulations on your new appointment – before we start could I just ask you to confirm that your post was originally the SNP’s Minister for Misinformation?
obviousalia – Yes Brian, but we decided that this name would make people think we were deliberately trying to misrepresent their views, so we thought my new title would enable me to hide behind a smokescreen so to speak
Brian - Could you give me an example?
obviousalia – Well lets say that some guy writes in and criticises our new policy on alcohol pricing and says:
“I strongly disagree with this proposal, which will punish those of us who drink responsibly, whilst having I suspect little effect on the heavy drinkers, other than to hit their pockets, thus leading to even more misery for their families who will have less money for food, clothes etc."
Now obviously we don’t want to admit that those who drink responsibly are being punished because of those who drink irresponsibly so I ignore that bit.
Now the next bit about Heavy drinkers only being hit in their pockets is almost certainly true as it won’t stop these people drinking, so I have to find a way of responding to this that will divert attention away from this fact and cast doubt on the writer’s credibility.
Brian - Yes I can see what you are getting at, so how do you go about that.
Obvious - What you do and this is the really clever bit, you don’t address the facts at all, so you look at the bit of the statement that points out a probable consequence of the drinker’s action in response to the policy and tie the two together as if the writer is suggesting that the consequences is being given as the reason for not implementing the policy, so you respond:
“So - free rotgut on prescription for irresponsible drinkers is the way forward according to your logic?"
and add a bit to support the policy
"I think we need to try to solve the problem, rather than encourage alcohol abuse with cheap booze."
Brian - But surely the writer will refute that first statement which is an obvious distortion of the truth
Obvious - Oh Yes he will probably say something like:
“I agree that the problem of problem drinkers needs to be tackled - I just believe that this won't do anything to help - if you have other ideas that might work, perhaps you would air them rather than trying to put words in my mouth."
Obvious - Obviously I must keep up the pretence so I respond:
“I still believe that the logical conclusion of your remarks is as I suggested - I wasn't putting words in your mouth, just extending your argument.”
and now for the killer punch:
”The idea of keeping drink cheap so that drunks can feed their families strikes me as absurd.”
“By the same token - no fines for drunks, for the same reason?”
Brian - Absolutely brilliant, the SNP must be very proud of you
Obvious - Oh yes they are – I think I may be in line for a promotion to one of our two new posts:
1. Minister for indoctrination
2. Minister for Abuse
Unfortunately the competition for both of these is extremely keen
Brian - You could even start up your own Blog
Obvious - Why should we – we’ve already taken over yours :-)
Complain about this comment
I'm a Scot based in Norway right now...the cost of drink is enough to put anyone off living in this country, and certainly enough to stop people going mad with booze. It's tough love, but the VAST difference is, hardly ANY drink-related violence in the streets here.
I've just done a blog on this, and will have to return to the subject soon as I couldn't fit all the points in in just one blog.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS