The SNP’s minimum pricing legislation is back, and this time it will pass, of course. The opposition of Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems to this proposal last time round made it look like they didn’t understand the scale of Scotland’s drink problem, or weren’t prepared to act. Petty, too, by the Coalition parties.
Because it’s an issue the public get, the credible suggestion is that this inability to be constructive cost them dear in the election, although only the Lib Dems have twigged. In September last year, Ross Finnie said minimum pricing “impacts heavily on the low paid, has a marginal effect on hazardous drinkers and gives a windfall to retailers”. Now he may be relieved not to be at Holyrood to hear Alison McInnes say, without the reverse ferret even being noted by the BBC, that it’s “a positive and confident step towards changing the culture of excessive drinking in Scotland”. Fair play to them. It’s the right thing to do, even if it’s unlikely to be the first of the twelve steps to recovery in the polls. The Green MSPs will support the measures (boom boom), just like they did in the last session.
However, and however, Labour are also right. In the last session their intransigence over the pricing issue obscured SNP intransigence over a Labour proposal – to limit the amount of caffeine per litre in booze sold in Scotland.
Billed as the Buckfast Ban, it would also have picked up some Red Bull type alcopops. There can be little doubt that it’s a dangerous mix. As the alcohol makes the drinker less predictable, the caffeine gives them the energy for bad behaviour. The cops and the neuroscientists alike will tell you that. A restaurant that served a diner their fifth Irish coffee would see the same effect. But the SNP rejected it, despite Nicola’s commitment at the time to consider “sensible, evidence-based amendments”.
A whole round of other ideas were on the table too, last time, including Green ones, which were designed to support positive and well-adjusted side to our alcohol culture too. Scotland makes fantastic beers (I’m thinking more Tempest or Brewdog, less what Kenny Macaskill called cooking lager), whisky, gin and other spirits. We also have the same social problem as the rest of the UK with the decline of the rural pub. Shouldn’t we be looking at how the market could be designed to offer better support to small and responsible domestic businesses?
But as Greens and Labour observed yesterday, to quote Richard Simpson, this is a “narrowly-defined bill – designed to shut down debate”, and as framed, these amendments won’t even be considered. The SNP promised to govern consensually. They have a thin legislative programme designed not to startle the horses before the referendum, so they have the time to spare. This is a chance to take longer, to be more reflective, more open, and to let Parliament do what it can more widely on the issue. They deserved and got credit for being prepared to push minimum pricing last time round, and they will get whatever Act they want through, now the opposition have been voted out of the way. But they’d get louder cheers for being consensual rather than merely talking about being consensual, and the end result would serve Scotland better.
#1 by Doug Daniel on November 2, 2011 - 11:45 am
Consensual politics is a two-way street – it requires a government open to ideas, but it also requires an opposition acting maturely by providing those ideas. From what Jackie Baillie said on Newsnicht last night, Labour’s position is essentially that they accept that the easy availability of dirt-cheap booze is a factor in our alcohol problem, and they accept that something should be done about it. However, they oppose MUP because it may be illegal, and because it would result in supermarkets making profits (those same supermarkets that they were so keen to save from the Tesco Tax last parliament…) So they think the price should be increased through alcohol duty, rather than MUP.
Well, that’s great, but they don’t support the transference of alcohol duty to Holyrood. So if that’s how they think it should be tackled, they’re effectively saying the government should do nothing, and just lobby Westminster to act instead. It’s a bizarre position. Why should we wait for Westminster when we could do something about it ourselves?
Incidentally, Jackie Baillie also brought up the point that the cost is the same across Britain, yet Scotland has a worse alcohol problem. I don’t know if this little nugget of wisdom keeps getting brought up to try and “prove” that cost isn’t a big factor, but what it certainly tells us is that Scotland needs more action to curb alcohol misuse than England, and therefore we have more need to raise the prices than England does.
Also, I remember Tom Harris pointing out on Sunday that he gets his alcohol from the Times Wine Club (or something like that), the implication being that MUP can be circumnavigated by getting your booze via mail order. Again, this completely misses the point – youths wanting to get wasted on cheap cider are unlikely to be able to do so through a mail order service.
Whenever someone gives a wide array of wee niggling excuses for not wanting to do something, the reality is they’re just scrambling for reasons not to do it, and none of them are the actual reason. I do the same when I don’t feel like going out with mates and come up with millions of reasons not to go out, when the truth is I just can’t be bothered. Why can’t Labour just be a bit more honest?
#2 by James on November 2, 2011 - 12:00 pm
After I hit post I realised I’d been too easy on Labour here, and I apologise for that. They were wrong last session and they’re wrong now. But that doesn’t make their ideas on caffeinated alcohol wrong, that’s all I’m saying.
#3 by Indy on November 2, 2011 - 12:16 pm
I instinctively think it would be a good idea to look at caffeine in alcohol. However someone emailed me a pdf from the last time the bill was before parliament which he said had been sent out by Jackie Baillie and it was mainly quotes from newspapers which, with the best will in the world, is not evidence. Maybe I picked it up wrongly and there is some more stuff out there, I dunno.
#4 by Doug Daniel on November 2, 2011 - 12:25 pm
Well, that’s true, if it’s a good idea then it’s a good idea, regardless of how stupid their other ones are. I’m yet to be convinced though – I have a habit of drinking Jägerbombs when I’m out, and I don’t go out causing crime. A quick look at this chart perhaps indicates why:
http://www.energyfiend.com/the-caffeine-database
For those who can’t be bothered looking, Red Bull has 9.5mg/oz of caffeine, which isn’t massively more than instant coffee (7.1mg/oz), but is significantly less than a Starbucks (20.6mg/oz for a Grande; 22.5mg/oz for a short). Obviously the point you’re making is that the alcohol makes them unpredictable, and it’s the energy contained in the drink that enhances their paucity for troublemaking as a result. Perhaps. But different alcohol has different effects on different people. Is it really the caffeine that is the problem, or is it the alcohol itself?
I’m not trying to discredit the idea that caffeine in alcohol is another factor in anti-social behaviour, just that I’ve not been convinced up to now. It needs to be argued better than it currently has been, because by focussing on Buckfast, Labour just looked very Glasgow-centric, as it is Glaswegian youths we generally associate with getting drunk on Buckie – everywhere else they just get associated with cheap cider. If they were to argue for this as an addition rather than an alternative to the SNP’s plans, then perhaps we’d be getting somewhere.
#5 by James on November 2, 2011 - 12:33 pm
Well, Patrick is arguing for it as an addition rather than an alternative. Even if they vote against the bill this is worth considering. Actually, more fundamentally, it’s worth drafting the bill so it can even be considered in the first place.
#6 by Doug Daniel on November 2, 2011 - 12:44 pm
If he can make a good case for it in the chamber, then I see no reason not to take him up on it.
#7 by James Morton on November 2, 2011 - 1:36 pm
Pricing is one of the few things government can use, but dealing with underlying social issues and our attitude to drink would be more effective. We should put an end to “happy hour” and we may need to look at closing hours. Licenses for the selling of alchohol should be looked at and dealt with more stringently. I am sure the police and the NHS who have to pick up the pieces every friday night and over the weekend, would have some ideas to pitch in. Politcians should take note of just how much the cleaning bill actually is.
Pricing should be one part of a larger solution. Our politicians should rise above petty point scoring and deal with this issue.
The one thing you can say about the SNP is that they are at least, “trying” to tackle it, not skirt about it like Labour did because of their obession with street cafe culture.
#8 by Richard Lucas on November 2, 2011 - 2:13 pm
I can’t believe you are being serious about caffeine as a problem. It is drunk people that cause problems. Buckfast Wine contains about 10 units of alcohol per bottle – why do you need to look past that to see why the stuff is trouble? It comes in a sturdy glass bottle that may well appeal as weapon to someone with 10 (or perhaps 20) units of swiftly and easily consumed alcohol inside them – hence the problem of the bottles being used as such. A beer drinker would need to drink 5 pints of beer to be as intoxicated as the Buckfast fan.
Seriously, how ofeten are the police called to deal with incidents of public jitteriness outside Starbuck?
#9 by James on November 2, 2011 - 2:19 pm
It’s the combination, Richard, as per this link in the article.
#10 by Gryff on November 3, 2011 - 9:33 am
With respect that is not evidence of causation, indeed I do not think there is any. Buckfast does not cause antisocial behaviour anymore than wearing hoodies and ill fitting trousers does. Antisocial drunks drink buckfast, so buckfast is often present in case of antisocial drunkenness, the caffeine is not to blame.
#11 by Indy on November 2, 2011 - 2:20 pm
Come on, Buckfast gives you an instant buzz. That has to be about the combination of a caffeine hit with an alcohol hit. It’s like an adrenaline shot.
#12 by Richard Lucas on November 2, 2011 - 2:48 pm
Well, I’ve written many hundreds of Social Enquiry Reports for Courts, the majority featuring alcohol-related offending, and whether the story began “at the start of the evening, before going out, Mr X drank Buckfast wine” or “Mr X drank strong lager” or “spirits” or “3 litres of cheap supermarket cider”, the story always ended the same way. Mr X would breach the peace, assault someone, or be found drunk in charge of a vehicle, possibly all three, and much more besides. I’ve come across many examples when a massive dose of Temazapam or Valium along with the alcohol added to the problems, but never caffeine.
#13 by Jeff on November 2, 2011 - 3:10 pm
Isn’t there caffeine in Buckfast which is the main thrust of this policy?
I don’t think its lattes or caffeine tablets that are the problem. It’s caffeine mixed in with the drinks themselves.
Anyone can point to one individual thing and say it’s not going to solve the problem, but James’ point that maybe it’s the SNP’s minimum pricing as well as the other parties’ suggestions that will lance this boil of ours has merit.
#14 by BaffieBox on November 2, 2011 - 3:34 pm
In my opinion, the SNP should be seen to bend over backwards to try and get this caffeine amendment in for several reasons:
1. As James said, they said they’d be consensual and they should be doing everything they can to do so. Setting and example and rising about the bitterness is paramount in winning voters over to independence.
2. There is absolutely no way that minimum pricing is going to have a major impact on our culture. It may nudge the numbers in the right direction, but that’s only a small step. Given we wont have a silver bullet, this is going to take a lot of small steps to make a major difference.
3. Given how long and how hard the opposition parties have made the SNP fight for this, there is a danger that the public perception is greater than it should be. This is whether the opposition has been ridiculous. People are going to look back and wonder why it’s not having a bigger impact. The only way to counter this is for all parties to influence the battle with alcohol – the array of measures should ensure everyone can claim credit and noone can outright say it was. And given the style of Labour’s opposition, I can already sense their anticipation of failue and “we told you so”.
And this final point is why I am absolutely disgusted with the opposition in this country. The current proposals for tackling alcohol abuse go nowhere near what is required. But when I think about some of the measures we should be considering, all I can think about is Labour bleating last session about the SNP penalising students who wanted a nice bottle of wine, or some other utterly lame electioneering. Id love the SNP to really go for the jugular on alcohol, but I can understand why they would hesitant to do anything radical when they have to deal with the kind of opposition wehave seen in Scotland, and a less than favourable press.
🙁
#15 by BaffieBox on November 2, 2011 - 3:36 pm
My word, sorry about the grammar, etc… I really should proof-read a rushed rant!
#16 by Richard Lucas on November 2, 2011 - 2:59 pm
The police in the article mention the Buckfast and the bottle – as I did. They don’t mention the caffeine, and I have a strong memory of the police dismissing caffeine as a factor the last time this argument was trotted out.
here’s a link: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/09/15/banning-buckfast-and-other-caffeinated-drinks-would-not-drink-related-violence-says-top-cop-86908-22563120/
‘Chief Superintendent Bob Hamilton, from Strathclyde Police’s territorial policing unit, blamed excessive alcohol consumption for violent behaviour.’
(…..)
Mr Hamilton said violence cannot solely be attributed to caffeine consumption.
‘He said: “We don’t attend many violent disturbances outside coffee shops… It’s the alcohol consumption – whatever brand or make – that gives us the greatest concern.”‘
#17 by Jeff on November 2, 2011 - 3:27 pm
I’m sorry, but it’s such a silly point he is making there.
Noone is suggesting that we need to “solely†clamp down on caffeine but caffeine opens the blood cells to alcohol and allows people to get drunk quicker so drinking the two in combination, in sizeable quantities, is a dangerous mix and patently more dangerous than just drinking the same volume of alcohol.
Anyone who uses the line: “We don’t attend many violent disturbances outside coffee shops†immediately loses credibility in my eyes.
#18 by Richard Lucas on November 2, 2011 - 3:48 pm
James’s link quotes the same police officer I quote. Nowhere in either article does a police officer reference caffeine as any part of the problem, solely or in combination with alcohol. The neurosurgeon offers an hypothesis, nothing more. The cops, in comparison, deal with this stuff in non-hypothetical situations all the time.
#19 by James on November 2, 2011 - 3:53 pm
“Superintendent Bob Hamilton of Strathclyde Police said the figures showed a “clear†association between the drink, which contains the same amount of caffeine as eight cans of Coke, and violence.”
#20 by Richard Lucas on November 2, 2011 - 4:04 pm
But Chief Superintendent Hamilton didn’t himself make the caffeine link – that was put in by a journo. What he did say to the Hollyrood Health Commitee was:
BANNING caffeinated alcoholic drinks such as Buckfast will not necessarily stop or decrease violent crime, a police chief said today.
Chief Superintendent Bob Hamilton, from Strathclyde Police’s territorial policing unit, blamed excessive alcohol consumption for violent behaviour.
He told Holyrood’s Health Committee, which is examining the link between violence and drinks such as Buckfast, that “people would drink something else” if a ban was imposed.
Mr Hamilton also said there was no evidence to suggest the tonic wine caused or increased violence. He said the “significant issue” is the availability and cheap price of alcohol.
#21 by HolyroodPatter on November 2, 2011 - 4:05 pm
As someone who has seen the binge drinking culture with Scotland’s youth First Hand, I take huge issue with the caffeine ban. Some are saying it is well intentioned but in focussing on one product, furthering drawing attention to Labour’s status as Scotland’s reactionary party.
Furthermore, I could have a stab at people who drink buckfast and high sugar alcopops, and I can tell you 100% it dwarfs into comparison with people who on average nights out mix energy drinks with spirits. Ask any nightclub in Glasgow what their number one vodka mixer is and I would bet the vast majority will say Red Bull (or a variant thereof). Our biggest pub chain in weatherspoons advertise cheap cocktails which contain 2 cans of Monster (twice as bad as the market leader in terms of damage, and I should know, I once worked for a company that got caseloads of it for free, and it really does cause havoc) that Jackie Bailie et al havent even mentioned this phenomonon shows just how misguided their policy is. Can one even legislate on such things? Perhaps a clause which encourages positive education on mixing caffeinated drinks with spirits (as I maintained, a much bigger concern than buckfast) would go much further to adress some of the Social Problems rightly highlighted
#22 by Jeff on November 2, 2011 - 4:51 pm
Yes, but don’t these energy drinks also have masses of amounts of caffeine in them so wouldn’t the ‘buckfast’ rule, despite the name, also apply to them? Which, if I’m not mistaken, would be something that you’d be in favour of….?
#23 by Scotsfox on November 2, 2011 - 4:16 pm
So we’ll have to ban Coca Cola as a mixer for spirits? The whole idea is just daft IMHO.
#24 by Richard Lucas on November 2, 2011 - 4:17 pm
My suggestion to reduce violent crime resulting from alcohol would be to ban off-sales of alcohol from Thursday to Sunday and after 5pm on all other days.. This would require potential offenders to plan ahead in ways I think that they would be unequal to. It would be very unpopular with the rest of us, but I’m sure it would be effective.
#25 by Richard Lucas on November 2, 2011 - 4:36 pm
James- the article you quoted at me is headed ‘Scots are drinking 25 per cent more alcohol than people south of the Border and the difference in consumption is widening, according to a new study.’ There’s the problem neatly stated.
Most of the folk I wrote reports on had been drinking cheap cider – it the most cost-effective route to being blootered. And that’s the type of product a minimum unit price will hit.
#26 by James on November 2, 2011 - 4:40 pm
I agree that’s a problem. But I think it’s not the only one.
Perhaps this is more persuasive – a CDC paper on the topic?
#27 by Dubbieside on November 2, 2011 - 4:51 pm
My concern with the debate about caffeine content in alcoholic drinks is how it could be introduced. Would this not just amount to a De Facto ban on these drinks in Scotland. Would companies that produce these products, with the possible exception of Buckfast, bother to produce a separate lower caffeine content product for Scottish consumption only.
Reading Richard Lucas comment at 4.17pm reminded me of just how much pre planning we had to do in my youth (a long time ago) to organise a carry out, as most off licences closed at 5.30pm or 6.00pm. However rather than penalise everyone by shorter opening hours, I would settle for proper policing of the existing licensing laws particularly the age criterion.
Would it not be possible to have some kind of coded sticker attached to the bottles and cans so that should trouble occur the police would know where the alcohol had been purchased from. While this would be after any offence, if any particular off licence kept on being identified as the source for alcohol that was related to anti social behaviour, a case could be made for stopping that licence.
#28 by Tom Cresswell on November 2, 2011 - 5:06 pm
I think that there’s general agreement here that the SNP should consider looking at amendments on caffeine in alcohol, but are Labour even going to press for it this time anyway? Furthermore, what is Labour’s position on it this time round anyway?
I agree that the SNP do need to show more willingness on acting upon their “no monopoly on wisdom” line, but the opposition parties have more and more been using the line that the SNP have a majority, so they won’t listen to any of our ideas, so we won’t bother to come up with any and just whine about it instead.
What struck me most on the Politics Show on Sunday was when Johann Lamont was asked if she thought Labour should back MUP, her response was “well it will have a majority in the Parliament so its academic if we decide to support it or not”… awfully depressing isn’t it? You never see Ed Milliband saying that in Westminster (or indeed Cameron when he was in opposition), why should it be any different in the Scottish Parliament. Just because we have a majority government doesn’t mean we’re not going to need an opposition.
#29 by James on November 2, 2011 - 5:13 pm
It’s best not to lump the opposition parties in together. Greens and Tories have always been, from opposite sides, more ready to work constructively with the SNP where possible. And the Libs have done a handbrake turn on this issue. I think you mean Labour throughout.
#30 by Tom Cresswell on November 2, 2011 - 5:35 pm
“Greens and Tories have always been, from opposite sides, more ready to work constructively with the SNP where possible”
In the last parliament yes, when the SNP had a minority, but all the opposition are using the SNP having a majority as an excuse more and more not to put forward amendments (Labour possibly more then the Greens and Conservatives but the point still stands). You bring up the Lib Dems, think about how often you read a story where Willie Rennie talks about Alex Salmond “bulldozing” legislation through parliament. He used that quote during summer when the parliament was in recess, and he accused the of bulldozing their legislative program through parliament two days before they had even announced their legislative program!
My point is that even though Westminster governments effectively always have a majority, you would never hear an opposition leader say how futile it is for them to come up with a policy and how they can’t do anything to stop the government, partially because its defeatist and they have no hope of winning the next election if that’s all they say, but mostly because if an opposition actually bothers to come up with good arguments and policies, its not true. Heck, even Caroline Lucas doesn’t let that stop her from making her case in the Commons.
(I’m actually slightly frightened, since this is possibly the first ever time I’ve said that the way somethings are done in Westminster are better then how parliament functions at Holyrood…)
#31 by James on November 2, 2011 - 6:15 pm
And institutionally Caroline gets taken by Bercow at PMQs a lot more than Patrick gets taken by Marwick here, despite the fact she’s 1/650 rather than 1/129.
#32 by Aidan on November 2, 2011 - 6:53 pm
The sectarian bill was being bulldozed before they announced their legislative program.
#33 by Richard Lucas on November 2, 2011 - 5:29 pm
James
I agree that’s a problem. But I think it’s not the only one.
Perhaps this is more persuasive – a CDC paper on the topic?
Yes – that’s a little better 🙂
Something should be done about the problem of Buckfast, whether because of the caffeine, or because of the cachet it enjoys in what I probably shouldn’t call ned culture. The price is too high high for minimum pricing to hit it. For safety’s sake the glass bottle could be banned for a start. Banning the distinctive orange label wouldn’t hurt either as an aid to demoting the drink’s status. But, as the Chief Supt says, something else will pop up to take its place as the must have blooter juice of choice.
#34 by Indy on November 2, 2011 - 9:41 pm
There is nothing wrong with calling it ned culture because that’s what it is.
But I agree it’s not as simple as just saying ban Buckfast and hey presto, because they would find something else.
Having said that, I do think the monks at Buckfast Abbey may be dicing with the possibility of condemning their immortal souls to an eternity in the fiery flames for brewing up what is a pretty demonic drink.
But then it was originally marketed as a tonic wine I suppose and it has been drunk that way. About twenty years ago I was in Galway visiting a distant relative and she had a glass of Buckfast a day and said it did her wonders. I had no doubt that it did indeed perk her up of an evening. And it would be harmless enough if drunk that way but not so good when people neck a whole bottle!
#35 by Barbarian on November 2, 2011 - 9:49 pm
Minimum pricing will only work if used in conjunction with other schemes. Education is a major area that must be tackled.
What is also needed is a way to deal with minor alcohol related offences. I suggest getting offenders sweeping the streets in bright orange jumpsuits.
We also need a culture change, and that will take decades, if ever.
#36 by M G on November 2, 2011 - 11:44 pm
Do you not think the fact that alcohol is a ‘depressant’ and possibly has more immediate impact on a ‘slight ‘5 ft8 teenager than a fully grown adult may have the same or more impact than caffeine.
The reason to drink for many teenagers IS as we all know ,you lose your inhibitions(,a double edged sword). Just as you can lose the reality of ‘feeling’like a gawky teenager, you also lose perspective that someone has just called you a gawky teenager (or words to that effect ) the situation then escalates.
Interestingly, I have seen and had to deal with the longterm effects of alcohol,where people have been extremely aggressive,often challenging for ,or actually assaulting others. Not one of them have been teenagers. I.m talking about elderly people who like their ‘wee drink’ everynight. 3rd day without and the withdrawl symptoms are there.
Its too easy to target teenagers and too many folk are in denial