For some reason, a reason that has always bewildered me, Governments are often judged on the delivery of their promises within their first 100 days.
In 2007, the SNP was able to rhyme off a dizzying list of achievements in its first 100 days, wrongfooting its opponents who no longer taunted ‘the biggest thing they’ve ever run is Falkirk Council’. I don’t think we’ll hear that barb’s ilk again either.
It is perhaps unfair to throw down a short-term gauntlet to the new majority Government when Scotland’s problems are largely structural, are partly out of the Government’s hands and require more than a quick-win -> moving away from PFI, increasing education standards, increasing health and well-being and powering the renewables revolution, for example.
So, if the SNP is to be conscious of delivering a 100 days that will stand up to the Scottish media’s scrutiny, what might they contain?
For me, a key debate and a winning vote on minimum pricing, even at a stage of the Bill before finalisation, would be more than enough. What a way for the SNP to put a marker down that this term will see more progress thanks to insufficient opposition to the most sensible of policies. Pats on the back from numerous stakeholders from the BMA to the police would be sufficient to tick that 100 day box.
The only non-political opposition that I have seen recently is from the Scotch Whisky Association, odd you would think given whisky is largely a premium product so its pricing would be largely unaffected by minimum pricing. My suspicion is that some of the members of SWA also sell deep-discounted alcohol away from the whisky line and a clever use of that respectable-sounding umbrella organisation is being made. Either way, they are in the minority, politically as well as from a civic perspective.
But what else could these 100 days bring? Or is it only 93 now? Well, feel free to make some suggestions because despite a plethora of manifestoes and a long election campaign, I am somewhat stumped.
Not that it ‘really’ matters of course. As JFK put it:
“All this will not be finished in the first hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first thousand days, nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.â€
#1 by Danny95 on May 12, 2011 - 9:34 am
Oh no not minimum pricing.
That’s the worst thing about an SNP majority IMO.
#2 by Jeff on May 12, 2011 - 10:19 am
Interesting, I think it’s the best thing about an SNP majority.
Perhaps we should avoid the debate altogether if we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this one….! 😉
#3 by Doug Daniel on May 12, 2011 - 1:53 pm
I don’t think you should avoid it, Jeff! It would be interesting to hear what Danny doesn’t like about the policy – after all, it’s near unanimous support amongst important groups makes me wonder what exactly it is the minority has against the proposal, and if they have perhaps misunderstood it.
#4 by Doug Daniel on May 12, 2011 - 1:57 pm
Oh, should have read all the comments further down first…
#5 by John Ruddy on May 12, 2011 - 5:36 pm
I dont have a problem with using price to affect alcohol consumption. I have a problem with the method the SNP government chose to do it.
And to be honest enough to say that the policy will also affect the price of a bottle of Scotch – because the last oen wouldnt. It also wouldnt have affected the price of a bottle of Buckfast, interstingly enough. Plus, it would only have boosted the coffers of the leading supermarkets – and not provided much needed funds for the NHS to cope with the alcohol related problems it faces.
Which is why I think that the solution is to increase duty at a UK level. The money can then go to the treasury to spend on measures to reduce alcohol issues.
#6 by Indy on May 12, 2011 - 7:50 pm
Increasing tax would make no difference. The large supermarkets could easily afford to absorb that or pass it on to their customers on other products. They have become stuck in a cycle of competing on alcohol prices. No single one of them could break that cycle unilaterally because that would give an advantage to their competitors. Tesco pretty much admitted that when they said they would support minimum rpricing if it applied across the board.
Plus those who talk about using increased revenues from raising the price of alcohol to tackle alcohol abuse are missing the entire point. The purpose of minimum pricing is to reduce the amount of alcohol that is purchased and consumed. It is not to increase the amount of money which the government makes.
#7 by Gryff on May 12, 2011 - 8:10 pm
The troube with increasing duty on a UK level is that it is not within the SGs powers, and it doesn’t look like the UK govt are going to do it either. There are other problems with the duty regime, but not that couldn’tbe solved if the political will were there. (which it isn’t)
Of course minimum pricing can have a positive financial effect. If succesful it reduces costs to the NHS and to policing, it can also increase duty revenue, and can provide the justification for either a social responsibility levy or supermarket tax. Which answers the ‘boosting supermarket profits’ criticism.
#8 by ianbeag on May 12, 2011 - 9:48 am
Two essentials – show significant progress in the negotiations towards a change in the future rate for corporation tax in Scotland and confirmation that control of the Crown Estates Commission has been incorporated in the new Scotland Bill.
#9 by Jeff on May 12, 2011 - 10:14 am
Thanks Ian, I’m way behind the curve on the Crown Estates Commission issue and what it entails but I sense that’s an even better shout than my minimum pricing suggestion.
#10 by Shuna on May 12, 2011 - 10:53 am
Re SWA – the whisky companies dont just make whisky. For example the grain whisky distilation process is used for the production of white spirit (rum, gin, vodka, non-defined spirit)- which is then used in alcopops as well as being bottles as forementioned gin, vodka, rum. So the SWA has an interest in all spirit production. And as many of the companies producing whisky also own breweries….. of course they have an interest in the whole market – including the cheap brands.
Whisky/spirit is cheap to produce and grain whisky which makes up the vast majority of the cheaper blends is particularly cheap!
So your suspicions are correct – but the production is not so hidden as you think.
#11 by Jeff on May 12, 2011 - 10:59 am
Thanks Shuna. I still think it is a bit sneaky to protest as the ‘Scotch Whisky Association’, conjuring up proud notions of Scotland’s favourite tipple (sic), when really it’s cheap-as-chips-vodka/cider/gin that is feeling the squeeze.
#12 by Gregor on May 12, 2011 - 11:09 am
The bit I really don’t understand about the SWA’s position is that they’re saying it’ll affect their exports, from the last press release I saw. How does that work? Surely minimum pricing won’t affect things sold abroad?!
#13 by Jeff on May 12, 2011 - 11:12 am
Yes, that crossed my mind too when I read the Scotsman’s piece (probably similar to the press release). I just think they are using the fear of a fragile UK economy and the export-led recovery to argue against the inevitable.
#14 by DougtheDug on May 12, 2011 - 11:13 am
The SWA is claiming that minimum pricing will hit cheap imports of booze and therefore other countries will retaliate in some kind of trade war.
However most cheap booze from cheap vodka to cider in plastic bottles is made in the UK and the imported stuff tends to be too expensive for minimum pricing to have any impact on its price.
As an example a standard bottle (70cl) of Grouse Scotch Whisky costs £15.67 in Asda.
Minimum pricing for that amount of alcohol is £12.60 at 45p per unit so minimum pricing would have no effect on Grouse and certainly no effect on the more pricey malts or on expensive imports.
I’d go with the idea that it’s all about protecting the distilling and brewing companies market of home produced cut price booze in this country.
#15 by Danny1995 on May 12, 2011 - 11:06 am
Meh. I just don’t like the policy at all. It benefits retailers and I think it will actually hurt the families it is aimed at protecting.
#16 by Jeff on May 12, 2011 - 11:14 am
I can appreciate the viewpoint but I think the overarching argument is that it will ensure alcohol is treated with the respect and caution that it deserves and will, at least a little bit, help people stop drinking themselves into a stupor (indirectly reducing crime and boosting health) which, looking across the continent, seems to be a very British phenomenon.
#17 by Doug Daniel on May 12, 2011 - 2:06 pm
What’s wrong with the policy benefitting retailers? If this is such a bad thing, then presumably you were fully behind the SNP’s plan to impose the large retailer levy in the last parliament, and were as disgruntled as I was that the three unionist parties refused to back it, just because they are all funded in part by the large supermarkets?
As for hurting families, how will this happen? I would understand if this was a proposal for minimum pricing on bread, milk, dairy products or children’s clothing, but alcohol is a luxury item. Are we saying that alcohol is a necessity of life, and that families depend on being able to get drunk out of their skull on cheap booze in order to function?
#18 by John Ruddy on May 12, 2011 - 5:39 pm
Cant you see the problem in thinking that the unionist parties are beholden to the supermarkets, when they were against something which would have increased their profits? (ie minimum pricing )
#19 by Doug Daniel on May 12, 2011 - 11:35 pm
But can’t you see the problem in arguing against a measure because it would increase supermarket profits, only to turn around a few months later and argue against a measure that would decrease profits?
There is, of course, one common factor in the minimum pricing and supermarket levy proposals: both were SNP ideas.
Oh, two common factors: they were both in the final months of a minority government.
#20 by Gryff on May 12, 2011 - 8:13 pm
The hurt supposedly comes in because an alcoholic just spends more money, rather than dirnking less, which has a negative impact on any children they are supporting. Minimum pricing is not really expected to have much real impact on hardcore alcoholics, but more on those in danger of becoming alcoholics, and those who drink huge amounts on the cheap before going out and getting into fights.
#21 by Gavin Hamilton on May 12, 2011 - 12:11 pm
I’d like to see the Scottish Government, and Alex Salmond as First Minister in particular, taking forward the work to deal with sectarianism and the problems of hatred, violence and drinking associated with football as a result.
This is something for all Scotland.
#22 by Una on May 12, 2011 - 1:51 pm
I totally agree. As well as laying down markers with Westminster, Salmond should take on sectarianism and lay down markers about the kind of Scotland he wants to see.
#23 by rlemkin on May 12, 2011 - 2:08 pm
I do agree but surely they can do both!
#24 by Tony on May 12, 2011 - 2:25 pm
We could start ourselves by speaking out that it is not sectarianism in general, but what was once establishment anti-Catholicism that still lingers and manifests itself at the fitba, coalescing round one particular fitba team mainly. While thankfully the rest of society moved on from that state of affairs long ago. So until we call it what it is we cannot really tackle the issue effectively. Hence why so much money has been wasted over the years. Time to be honest.
On the bevvy, no-one has claimed ever that the SNP plan was a panacea, but it is a step in the right direction until we think of something better.
#25 by Doug Daniel on May 12, 2011 - 2:16 pm
How about passing a law that states all former leaders of opposition parties have to wear dunce hats in the chamber? It’d be an abuse of power, but it’d be quite funny, too…
On a more sensible note: minimum pricing; large retailer levy; measurable progress on improvements to the Scotland bill; maybe even a meeting of minds with the Greens and that wee minority party Tavish used to lead to try and work towards a replacement for council tax. Any of that would suit me down to the ground.
#26 by Steve on May 12, 2011 - 7:29 pm
Not surprisingly I suppose, but I’d like to see something done on poverty.
I’d like it if one of the committees of the Parliament (maybe equal opps) did an equality impact assessment of policies against the usual indicators (race, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion) plus social background as a matter of routine.
I’d like to kick this off with a short and quick equality audit of the cuts coming from the UK plus things like the impact of fuel increases, and an action plan to mitigate disproportionate impacts on groups affected.
We know the cuts are impacting on women and children and disabled people. We still have a lot of fuel poverty but many of the poorest are on the most expensive energy tariffs.
I think the SNP did well pitching to a wide audience with free prescriptions, free education and a council tax freeze, but I’d like to see something specifically acknowledging the disproportionate impact of these difficult times on many vulnerable groups in society.
Allowing this to be led by the Parliament would be a good approach too, it’s something other parties have an interest in too.
#27 by Iain Menzies on May 12, 2011 - 10:21 pm
the problem with the SNP plan is that it try’s to target how much we drink. personally i dont accept that thats the problem.
the problem is HOW we drink, not how much we drink.
having been a student at Dundee university for the past 4 years….and having worked on the unions bars the first of those, whats striking is that the longer ive been at uni, the later in the night the union has been filling, and the drunker people are when they get there.
i dont think its the price of drink, but the relative price thats the problem. if you can get to a situation where people think they can afford to go to a bar/club and have a good drink without breaking the bank your half way to a solution.
the other part of the problem is that i personally cant remember the last time i saw bar staff anywhere tell someone theyve had enough and refuse to serve them.
if you dis-insentivise pre loading, and hit bars/clubs hard that sell to the already pished you will make more inroads into the problem than by upping prices alone.
#28 by Doug Daniel on May 13, 2011 - 12:03 am
“if you dis-insentivise pre loading, and hit bars/clubs hard that sell to the already pished you will make more inroads into the problem than by upping prices alone.”
This sounds a bit like “oh, this won’t stop alcohol abuse on its own, so there’s no point in even trying it out”, which seems to sum up the attitude of the three unionist parties.
There are two ways of disincentivising pre-loading. One is to reduce the price of alcohol in pubs & clubs; the other is to increase the price of alcohol in supermarkets etc. However, alcohol is (essentially) the sole revenue stream in pubs & clubs, whereas supermarkets can sell it as a loss-leader. The only way alcohol in pubs & clubs could be reduced would be by reducing the tax – which is controlled by Westminster! Even if the SNP did want to reduce the price of alcohol in pubs & clubs (what a great message that would be sending out…) they can’t do a thing about it. So they’ve tried to do something where they do have control, which has been one of the common themes of the SNP’s approach to governing – finding alternative ways of doing things (e.g. stopping new nuclear plants through planning laws since nuclear energy is a reserved matter).
As for selling to already-drunk people, well, it’s already illegal but no one does anything about it. So other than pushing police to do more about it, there’s not much more you can do there, especially with the police already being busy stopping drunken fights etc in the street.
I really don’t see how you can separate HOW we drink with how MUCH we drink, though – the problems occur when people leave the pubs, not when they enter them. The less drunk they are when they enter, the less drunk they can get before they leave. How do you do that? Make alcohol in supermarkets less cheap!
#29 by Iain Menzies on May 13, 2011 - 2:40 am
trying it out? i would hope that any governing party would have reasoning more than just ‘trying it out’..
and you can separate how we drink from how much. the amount people drink isnt, i would argue, due to the price, its about aims. and the aim of an awful lot of people when they go out of an evening is to get utterly, horribly drunk. pricing may reduce the frequency of that…but you would have to seriously up the price to do that, and even if you did i for one am not convinced it would work, tho i have no evidence of this other than bank statements which show what i personally could do when i was in a bar that took cards and had already been drinking….and it aint pretty.
part of the problem with this whole debate is that it treats drinking as a bad thing. but no one will convince me that a couple of halfs of talisker can be a bad thing.
all pricing will do is mean that those with less money wont be able to pre load….but since this is apparently not just about crime but about health shouldnt the aim be to cover everyone? as it happens i also know alot of young doctors…and dear o do they like their pre loading.
and heres a wee thought, if the police and the various authorities spent abit mroe tiem putting pressure on those retailers that are selling to drunks, you not think that maybe there would be fewer fights to contend with after the bar closes?
#30 by Doug Daniel on May 13, 2011 - 10:57 am
They do have better reasoning than just trying it out – it’s an evidence based approach. My point there was more about the naysayer attitude to the policy, rather than the Government’s reasoning.
Anyway, you’re right that the main aim is to change the “let’s go out and get destroyed” attitude (that’s how my mate’s word it). I suppose my problem with what you said was it appeared to be more about shifting the time people do their hardcore drinking back towards the pub, rather than trying to change this attitude completely.
And you’re right, there would be less fighting if the police actually used the powers they had to enforce the non-selling of alcohol to the already drunk. But then I suppose that if you get refused in one bar, you go to a different one, then a different one until you get served somewhere. There’s always someone that will serve you, and how can the police keep an eye on every punter in every bar? Far more effective to try and dissuade people from wanting to go out and get bleezing in the first place. That would also avoid resentment being built up.
Quite simply, we probably need to get to a point where being drunk in public is thought of as something to be ashamed of, rather than proud of.
#31 by The Burd on May 13, 2011 - 6:16 pm
Agree wholeheartedly with the proposition in the last sentence.
#32 by Indy on May 13, 2011 - 9:38 am
Enough alcohol is sold in Scotland for every man woman and child over the age of 16 to exceed safe male drinking limits every single week of the year.
The problem is how much we drink as well as the way that we drink./
#33 by dave on May 13, 2011 - 5:04 pm
Whilst I agree that minimum pricing would have a small positive effect on people’s drinking habits, I can’t help thinking that it’s treating the symptom without tackling the underlying cause.
I just don’t see how people’s attitude to drink is going to be changed by deceasing the availabilty.
I also have doubts about the principle of government trying to bring about change in such an indirect way.
It’s better than nothing, but it’s a poor solution IMO.
Pingback: Why everyone is still wrong about timing for the referendum. « Better Nation