So for all the talk of 40p, 45p or 50p levels of pricing, of a £2bn scourge on our economy, of the legality of trying to fix our nation’s illness and of political posturing that has not always shown our Parliament in its best light, the radical change that our politicians have agreed on to win the hitherto one-sided battle against alcohol is to ban irresponsible drink promotions at off licenses and introduce a social responsibility fee. It really doesn’t go far enough I’m afraid.
Someone, somewhere has failed, but trying to look at the position as objectively as possible, I disagree with The Scotsman’s view that it is the SNP who has suffered “a blow†here today. Nicola Sturgeon can hold her head high and be confident that she is on the right side of the argument. The Scottish Government after all had the BMA, doctors, the police, nurses, community groups and whole lot more on their side. Sadly Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories were not amongst that number. The Greens, to their little-heralded credit, looked at the SNP’s policies, largely agreed with them and have been onboard ever since.
So who loses here, aside from the many who will continue to drink themselves into an early grave?
Well, the Conservatives cannot really be blamed for having a firmly held belief and principle that is diametrically opposite to that proposed by the Scottish Government. Their typical supporters and more libertarian followers will not be moved by seeing minimum pricing voted down.
For the Lib Dems and Labour it is a different story. There should have been enough common ground with the SNP for a deal to have been reached and Gray and Scott should really have been persuaded by the views of the BMA, doctors and the police, not to mention their colleagues in London in some instances.
Focussing on caffeinated drinks may have some merit but it is inviting judgement over the motives of the decision to prioritise this particular angle. Was it because this is where Scotland’s greatest threat is regarding alcohol or was it just a convenient way to avoid facing up to the persuasive arguments for backing the radical option of minimum pricing?
On May 6th we will find out to what extent Scottish political parties get rewarded for saying a largely uninterrupted ‘No’ for four years and preventing much about anything getting done. Alcohol is holding Scotland back, so too are too many of our politicians.
#1 by Caron on November 10, 2010 - 12:48 pm
I agree with minimum pricing and that a deal should have been done. Honestly, the Nats have been slagged for years for whinging about Westminster and not using the powers they have. Here is an instance where they’re finding a good and effective way of doing that and getting jumped on from all sides. If it were just Alex and Nicola who were supporting it, I might feel less annoyed with the rest of the Chamber, but this has widespread expert and community support.
I do hope, though, that “the other bad boys in the playground took away our ball” isn’t going to be the SNP refrain in the run up to Holyrood. On many issues, they have been just as bad as the opposition.
#2 by Una on November 11, 2010 - 8:23 pm
No doubt true Caron. But there is genuine anger and upset about this issue within the SNP, it’s not just politicking. It’s really a sad day for Scotland.
#3 by commenter on November 10, 2010 - 3:00 pm
Minimum pricing for alcohol is like fining everyone for the actions of a minority. The govt is too spineless to deal with the problem itself, so they’ve come up with a measure that penalises everyone equally, regardless of fault.
#4 by Phil Hunt on November 10, 2010 - 6:47 pm
Indeed. By all means punish those who get pissed and then cause a nuisance to others. But don’t punish the millions who drink alcohol responsibly.
#5 by Allan on November 10, 2010 - 7:07 pm
I have previous on this, having posted on this and having been involved in a heated debate with the local SNP PPP Andy Doig over this in the pages of the Paisley Daily Express.
I am not for Minimum Pricing. Minimum Pricing would not have worked, it would not have acted as a deterent to heavy drinkers, who would have subsidised their habit by whatever means necessary. It would not have acted as a deterent to under age drinkers, they will carry on drinking regardless, and may even turn to crime to subsidise their weekends. It would have penalised moderate drinkers, who buy more and more of their stock from super markets because of the expensive prices charged in public houses.
Minimum pricing seems to be a simplistic solution for 3 seperate problems. The drinking culture, so engrained in Scottish culture will not be removed or diluted easily. You can possibly start with the underagers by asking why do people drink. The answer to that is possibly that there are no amenities, nothing for young adults to do. The “Penal architecture” jibe about Glasgow’s ring of housing estates still rings true 35 or so years after the publication of “Laidlaw”, and explains why bored young adults get sucked into a spiral of drink & drugs.
I am however appalled that so many “experts” have shown such a deep misunderstanding of the nature of addiction. Whether it is gamblers or alcoholics, if people are addicted to a substance/act they will try to consume/participate in it as often as they can. They are also likely to be the very last people aware that they have a problem, when it has been obvious to everyone else for some time. For so many people to say “ach just put the price up and they will stop doing it” – I really worry about the lack of intelligence and common sense on show here.
#6 by Jeff on November 10, 2010 - 8:11 pm
It sounds like you’d take a lot of convincing Allan but I’ll stick with the Sheffield academics who say that all drinkers would enjoy health benefits from minimum pricing.
You seem to think minimum pricing is being held up as the answer to every one of Scotland’s ills. I’m not aware of anyone claiming that it will cure “addiction” as you suggest and all sides agree that a mix of measures is required so it’s easy to shoot holes in minimum pricing on its own but, for me, it’s worth a try and the floor is open for any better idea or any idea that can sit alongside it to address the wider issue.
MSPs have effectively decided today to do nothing. Surely you agree that that’s not the answer?
#7 by DougtheDug on November 10, 2010 - 7:53 pm
These figures are the prices for various drinks at a minimum price of 45p per unit of alcohol.
Bottle Spirits, 700ml, 40%, 28 units, £12.60
Red Wine, 750ml, 14,% 10.5 units, £4.73
White Wine, 750ml, 12%, 9 units, £4.05
Pint Beer, 568ml, 5%, 2.84 units, £1.28
Can Beer, 440ml, 5%, 2.2 units, £0.99
Glass Red, 125ml, 14,% 1.75 units, £0.79
Small Beer, 330ml, 5%, 1.65 units, £0.74
Glass White, 125ml, 12%, 1.5 units, £0.68
Dram, 25ml, 40%, 1 unit, £0.45
There’s a lot of rubbish being talked about how this would have hit moderate drinkers. It’s easily seen that it won’t affect pub prices or affect supermarket prices for normal alcohol drinks at all.
Minimum pricing is aimed squarely at the suicide ciders which are priced at about £1.89 for 2 litres of 5% booze. This would go up to £4.50 for 2 litres under minimum pricing. To put it in context, if they were selling this cider in a standard 440ml can it would be £0.99 under minimum pricing not the £0.42 they are they are selling it for now.
Minimum pricing will not stop problem drinking but it’s worth a try because nothing else seems to have worked so far. It’s rather sad that the Labour party have gone against both the advice of the medical profession and the police for the simple reason that it was an SNP bill.
#8 by Andrew BOD on November 10, 2010 - 10:07 pm
Allan
“I am however appalled that so many “experts†have shown such a deep misunderstanding of the nature of addiction.”
How can you dismiss the many experts so easily? Just by saying it isn’t so?
You have a very polarised view of this debate without any real answers. The “bored young adults” viewpoint is utterly depressing and does a disservice to all of those young adults who have broken through that generational cycle.
Minimum pricing will have no effect on alcoholics, it will have a slight effect on heavy drinkers, it could have a bigger effect on binge drinkers, and underage drinkers are already breaking the law!
It would not have a huge effect on it’s own, but would alongside other current and future initiatives, and would positively seek to address a huge social disease in Scotland.
Once again partisan politics has won the day in Scotland. Has this not been the case for centuries in our thrawn nation?
Off down to Tesco to drown my sorrows in a 2 litre bottle of £1.32 Cider!(sic)
#9 by Indy on November 11, 2010 - 11:47 am
I have always supported minimumpricing and I do not buy this argument that it “penalises” the poor. For me it is quite simple. Thinking back to my own teenage drinking years I remember how much it cost to buy a bottle of “white lightening” then and I know how much it costs now. It is cheaper now. Not in relative terms but in absolute terms. Anne McLaughlin MSP made the case perfectly by holding up a 2 litre bottle of cider (empty – the Presiding Officer made her pour the contents down the sink before she brought it into the chamber!) and saying this cost £1.20.
You couldn’t have bought 2 litres of white lightening for £1.20 more than two decades ago. Why on earth should you be able to buy it for such a ridiculously cheap price now?
The answer is that this is the really ugly face of capitalism. Supermarkets competing with each other in a price war on alcohol, in a “race to the bottom” where they end up practically giving it away. And we all know the consequences of that.
Minimum pricing is the only effective way of stopping that. It’s not just the SNP that says so, we all know the huge range of expert opinion lined up on the side of this policy. These are the people who deal with the consequences of alcohol abuse day in day out. They could not have been clearer about saying why we need to act to stop cut-price alcohol sales – and it could not be clearer why minimum pricing is the only way to do that.
Labour and the Lib Dems chose to put party politics before public health yesterday. It begs the question of how serious they are about wanting to be in government because this problem is not just going to go away and the recommendation of the health service, the police and others about how we must tackle it is not going to change.
#10 by Allan on November 11, 2010 - 7:06 pm
Andrew BOD
“How can you dismiss the many experts so easily? Just by saying it isn’t so?”
Sorry for sounding so dismissive, but for so many people to assume that an increase in the price of alcohol will be enough to see a drop in consumptiuon of alcohol
What I find most depressing though is your attitude to the “bored young adults” line of argument. Yes there are some people – some people – who break the cycle but they do so in spite of the lack of amenities/enviroment that they live in.
There are real answers out there, investment in local amenities, a tougher attitude to people who sell to underagers AND those who buy for underagers, a rise in the age where alcohol can be bough from off-licences and a toughening of the licencing laws. The last two measures also failed to get into the Alcohol Bill, but i think that these measures would have had more of an impact on alcohol abuse in Scotland than Minimum Pricing.
#11 by Indy on November 12, 2010 - 9:31 am
The reason we assume that an increase in the price of alcohol – and a reduction in the availability of alcohol – will result in a drop in consumption is because a decrease in the relative (and in some cases the absolute) price of alcohol and an increase in availability has led to an increase in consumption. And that increase in consumption has led to the health and social consequences we are now seeing.
I think that may be something people don’t get about the situation. The consumption of alcohol has changed on a population-wide level. We have moved from a nation of people who drank mainly in pubs and licensed premises to a nation of people who drink mainly at home. The reason for that is the extreme cheapness of supermarket booze. With that shift, however, we have lost a lot of the social control over drinking and we are all living with the consequences.
#12 by Indy on November 12, 2010 - 9:33 am
Also Andrew I think you are kidding yourself if you think the only “problem drinkers” out there are teenagers.
Teenagers learn from adults in this respect. If adults drink like idiots so will their children.