Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 7th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Scottish Government reveals plans to tackle country's drink problem



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 17 June 2008
A MINIMUM price for alcohol was proposed by the Scottish Government today as part of a range of radical measures to fight the country's binge drinking culture.
Other proposals include raising the minimum age for buying drink in supermarkets and off-sales to 21 and banning cheap alcohol promotions.

Alcohol-only checkouts could also be introduced in larger off-sales premises, to reinforce the view that alc
ohol, like cigarettes, is a "special case".

And a "social responsibility fee" could be charged to some alcohol retailers, to help pay for the consequences of alcohol misuse.
The proposals were set out in a consultation document published today which aims to tackle a problem estimated to cost Scotland £2.25 billion a year.

The level of the minimum price has yet to be determined.
Health secretary Nicola Sturgeon said: "Setting a minimum price for a unit of alcohol will mean price better reflects the strength of alcoholic drinks.

"This will end the heavy discounting which allows strong drink to be sold cheaper than bottled water."

She said the Scottish Government was "determined" to tackle alcohol misuse.

"People across all sections of society, of all ages, are drinking ever greater quantities of stronger alcoholic drinks," she said.

"The cost of alcohol misuse to our health service, our justice services and our economy is enormous and growing.

"The cost to our families, our communities and our society is incalculable."

She said raising the age for off-sales purchase to 21, and better enforcement, would reduce "excessive" consumption by young people.

And Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said: "Alcohol is part of Scottish culture, and we value the contribution of the industry to our economy and national life, but we've got our drinking out of kilter.

"It's not the drink, it's how we're drinking it.

"I believe these proposals will help us build on the changes brought in by the Licensing Act, such as ending happy hours in pubs and clubs and bringing in separate display areas for alcohol."

"They can kick-start the long term cultural shift in our society that we need."

Ms Sturgeon said the proposals were "bold".

She added: "I believe we have a duty in the face of the scale of the issues that we are dealing with to respond with proposals that can match the scale, that reflect the scale of the problem. That's what we've done today.

"Some of the proposals are controversial. They will inspire heated debate – that debate is already taking place on the airwaves and communities of Scotland, but I welcome that."

The Government provided an indicative figure per litre at 35p per unit for the minimum price in the consultation. This compares with current examples of 25.5p for supermarket vodka and 20.5p for white ciders.

"We do believe that we can move forward with minimum pricing," Ms Sturgeon said.

Ms Sturgeon said this could be done either through secondary legislation under the Licensing Scotland Act 2005 or through primary legislation.

Ms Sturgeon added that the minimum price could be put in place without impacting on the price of whisky or mainstream lagers and beers.

The consultation does not include figures for the social responsibility fee but states this should be "proportionate to the size of the business".

It is aimed at ensuring businesses contribute towards the additional cost of providing services including "policing the night-time economy".

Local authorities should be able to determine the priorities within their area, according to the consultation which says that the fees should not be set out nationally.

"The fee should not become a direct alternative to established sources of funding but should provide an opportunity for local authorities and other public bodies to be innovative and creative in finding new ways of tackling and responding to the effects of alcohol misuse," the consultation adds.



The full article contains 646 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 17/06/2008 13:38:12
This lot have simply taken leave of their senses.

Why should I have to suffer their stupid nannying because a couple of jakeys cannot handle their drink?

I sincerely hope that the Scottish people will not take these moronic proposals lying down and that they will fight them all the way.

Come on! Get of your backsides, take your heads out of the sand, wake up and start using your brains for a change. This government are KILLING SCOTLAND. Stop them NOW before it's too late!
2

Allan(handofgod137),

17/06/2008 13:41:27
Here's a radical solution, stop the dolites and junkies breeding , and the majority of Scotland's social problems will disappear within a generation.
And as an added bonus we'll get rid of socialism and it's accompanying corruption as well.
3

IanW,

Ottobrunn 17/06/2008 13:57:02
Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head #1 - I fully agree. This is a typical knee-jerk reaction which does not look at the fundamental causes.

Increasing the prices only penalises the majority who behave in a reasonable manner. It does nothing to stop the 'neds' or sub-culture that is developing rapidly in this country.

The Government and there goody-goody advisors need to take a step back and really look at the propblem.

I could make a start by saying that many drinking problems start with matters such as: lack of education, lack of job opportunity, lack of affordable housing, to name some basics.

Tackle these problems and perhaps (there is no magic wand here) many of the alcohol and drug abuse, and thereby the related crime, would be reduced.

Penalising the ordinary citizen or even the shops for is just plain stupid, what next prohibition???
4

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 17/06/2008 14:03:51
Now would be a good time to open a home brew shop...But beware mr Scottish government 1 extra pence = 1 million lost votes...
5

Jimmy the Pie,

17/06/2008 14:06:28
You all seem to be forgetting (or choosing not to admit) that Scotland has a terrible drink problem.

How many lives are ruined by alcohol?

Not just by the drinker but their families?

And it is the NHS and other emergency services that pick up the tab (that's you and me).

Anything is worth a try.

To do nothing is not an option.
6

Sedov,

Scotland 17/06/2008 14:06:53
#1,2&3 Ah well, youse did vote for the buggers, so cheers..... and #1&2 keep the daft posts going, they are hilarious. (signed, a trotskyist, socialist and communist)
7

Robert Mason,

Larkhall 17/06/2008 14:14:29
I am no SNP supporter but I support these moves. The vast majority of Scots are fascinated by drink and something has to happen.
8

Popper,

17/06/2008 14:22:57
I'm sick reading this tripe that drink is cheaper than water. It's not. The cheapest drink is far dearer than the cheapest bottled water. You might as well say that vodka's cheaper than wine because you can buy a bottle of vodka for about 8 quid and you'll easily find wine dearer than that. So what? We already have the highest drink taxes in Europe outside Scandinavia, so alcohol is not cheap. Tax just went up 10% in the last budget. The SNP Govt has fallen for the high tax propaganda pushed by the Swedish state alcohol monopoly. Who do they think funds WHO Europe? The Govt consultation document uses 'research' by the Institute of Alcohol Studies. This is not a University or research institute but a temperance organisation! So-called alcohol research is totally corrupt.
9

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 17/06/2008 14:30:04

Its total and utter 'maronic' madness, to make this proposal and the young will still have their booze!
10

Adam Myers,

London, SW1 17/06/2008 14:31:22
We live in a free society and if you want to drink yourself to death you should have the right too.

If you get into fights or if you are underage, than these are both illegal and just need better enforcement. Throughout the UK, the consqeuences for both are no reflection for the problem and should be tougher.

Putting up the price or trying to restrict supply will lead to massive black-market, and a host of other unintended consquences; drinking meth's, home-brewing, etc.
11

blackley,

Edinburgh 17/06/2008 14:33:42
At last a government takes strong measures to combat our main social evil. Obviously root causes are the long-term illness but that's not going to change is it? Someone said why should i have to suffer nannying because some jakeys can't hold their drink? Exactly - why should I and my community have to suffer because the same jakeys get drunk and make our lives a misery.
Come on pay up if you want booze! You can afford it!
12

Ken Mac,

Glasgow 17/06/2008 14:52:10
#11 What do you know about what I can afford? Why should I have to pay because of the irresponsible attitude of others. It's open to question whether a price hike is going to make any difference. There are plenty of countries who pay far less for their booze than we do but don't have the same social problems. It's a culture change that is needed and that is a long term thing. By all means stamp down on irresponsible promotions and up the age limit for buying drink. Better still enforce the law and increase penalties for drink related offences and stomp very hard on retailers and adults who supply drink to kids.
13

IanW,

Grasbrunn 17/06/2008 14:56:35
Jimmy the Pie #5 - I don't think people are forgetting the propblem at all. I think most of us are really concerned about alcohol and drugs and the miriad of problems that surround it.

However it is a minority who cause the problem not the majority so why should the innocent majority be penalised.

I agree with you that "To do nothing is not an option", however we need to treat the root cause and not the symptoms.

I dont fully agree with Adam Myers #10 that "We live in a free society and if you want to drink yourself to death you should have the right too." because in having this right you may adversely affect the lifes of others. Yes we should have basic fundamental rights to do as we please but this must be within the law and within acceptable limits within any civilised society.
14

Jimmy the Pie,

17/06/2008 15:02:20
#13 IanW

I see what you're saying but the majority are already paying via taxes to pay for police NHS etc,.

Then there are the victims of assaults and the victims of drunk drivers. Do they have no rights??

Something has to be done and done soon.
15

john z,

edinburgh 17/06/2008 15:12:51
I support all these measures. The cost to Scotland from drunkards falling about and punching innocent people on a weekend is huge. It'll stop the weans walking out of their local grocer with alocopops - which are a scourge on society.

On another point, MILK is cheaper than water, in some shops
16

Nikostratos,

17/06/2008 15:18:20
SNP welcome to nu-labour territory lets see how you get on...

#14

Something must be done famous phrase..
17

Jacques 2007,

Edinburgh 17/06/2008 15:33:53
Buy off-licences in Berwick.
18

Nikostratos,

17/06/2008 15:38:16
#17

or a big white transit van
19

Allan(handofgod137),

17/06/2008 15:51:36
#6 I certainly didn't vote for them, and the daft posts are yours, shame on you for falling back on the usual leftist tactic of insulsts rather tan reasoned argument, but given your political affiliations expecting reason from you is unrealistic.
20

Sedov,

Scotland 17/06/2008 15:56:10
#19 alan stop being so pompous, we probably have a lot more in common than you imagine.
21

Jimmy the Pie,

17/06/2008 16:18:21
#13 IanW

I see what you're saying but the majority are already paying via taxes to pay for police NHS etc,.

Then there are the victims of assaults and the victims of drunk drivers. Do they have no rights??

Something has to be done and done soon.
22

Kiltie Kiltie Caldbum,

3 sters up 17/06/2008 16:36:40
Ms Sturgeon was quoted "I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me".
23

IanW,

Grasbrunn 17/06/2008 17:14:27
Jimmy the Pie #21 - Hi Jimmy, good to chat with you, i'm just back from yet another boring meeting....

I fully agree that we are all ultimately paying for the results of our drinking habits. Indeed Ken Mac at #12 highlights the fact that other cultures can drink without resorting to bad habits, etc.

Also I touched on the rights of others when I said that "Yes we should have basic fundamental rights to do as we please but this must be within the law and within acceptable limits within any civilised society." This implies that those that are victims of others acting under the influence of alcohol have the right of protection under the law and also the moral support if nothing else from society.

Alcohol dependency, and its affects, is a scourge on society and needs to be addressed, but I do not see that putting up the price will stop the alcoholics getting a hold of it nor protect the avergae well behaved citizen from their madness.

As I said we need to treat the illness and not the symptoms.

24

Rab The Ranter,

Ayrshire 17/06/2008 17:15:10
Has anyone ever noticed the incredible coincidence that the names MacAskill and Sturgeon are an anagram of ARS£H0LE.

25

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

17/06/2008 17:33:46
"You all seem to be forgetting (or choosing not to admit) that Scotland has a terrible drink problem."

Indeed: we have too many politicians who are drunk on power.
26

Dugald,

17/06/2008 17:41:58
It's collective punishment, that's whot it is.
27

tomislav,

home 17/06/2008 17:53:43
Give me the same salary and allowances that the "Scotch Government" enjoy and they can triple the price of alcohol.
28

Dekester,

Canada's westcoast 17/06/2008 18:01:25
We visit California regularly. Booze is dirt cheap, and you can buy it at gas stations, grocery stores etc.

The legal age is 21, and although alcohol is a problem it pales in comparison to Scotland. We Scots have an image the world over as a nation that has a major problem with the booze.

We all started drinking as 13 and 14 yr olds. I know there are righteous types that pooh pooh that. However it is a fact, that domestic abuse and family break ups are by large.Directly attributable. To the demon.

Many in Scotland are full of fear and self-loathing. Tackle that, coupled with some sensible measures to discourage drinking, and we will all be better off.

All the best.

29

radge dug,

17/06/2008 18:17:09
#1 and 2 - agree. Down with the bad nanny state. Thing is, what next? I can't decide if child abuse laws should be abandoned or if immigration laws should be scrapped. After, if we beleive in free markets, surely anything goes?

Why should i have to live under laws just cos some folk murder and steal?
30

Bill the Baboon,

Edinburgh 17/06/2008 18:19:20
I presume the wee dictator and his hench people will lead by example by banning the consumption of alcohol at all Scottish Exec - oops Government premises (including Bute House)and events? But I'm for getting - its one rule for them.
31

Stuntman Mike,

17/06/2008 18:20:24
In this modern age of the global market, is it really possible for the insular Nats to control the price of alcohol in Scotland in this way? Many will take to ordering alcohol online or even (whisper it in front of the Nats!) stocking up down south (Scots do spend a lot of time down there for various reasons!)

This is an example of the “Nanny State” gone mad and is just typical of a party whose members are schizophrenically unable to decide whether they are Tartan Tories (witness poll tax 2) or “real Labour” (witness this “Nats know best” nannying!)
32

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 17/06/2008 18:30:49
It's completely impossible to take seriously anyone who uses the phrase "nanny state gone mad" without irony.
33

Stuntman Mike,

17/06/2008 18:51:39
#32: what about some twisted troll who's taken to holding himself out to be a Westcountry man of the cloth? What's that all about?
34

lachlan,

17/06/2008 19:05:18
norway,sweden-alcohol priced high sold seperate from food.binge drinking problem.spain,italy alcohol and food go hand in hand.more relaxed drinking cultures.yes as in most countries italy and spain have prblem drinkers but not near the levels we have.
i am not sure how the wine and beer producing coutries in the E.U.are going to react to price fixing of their product even by indirect means.
35

Scimitar1,

Belgium 17/06/2008 19:16:50
Here in Belgium , cheap booze is available in the soft
drink vending machines almost everywhere at at 1Euro a
can 24/7. Supermarkets sell quality beer at 25p a half liter. I dont see any drunks making a foul of themselves , in fact alcohol abuse is not a problem at all. The problem isn't price/availability it
goes far, far deeper than that.
36

monkey man,

17/06/2008 19:34:51
I'd put a tax on alcohol the same as a pack of cigarettes. Make beer or lager at least £5 a pint and wine or spirits £10 a glass and our country will be healthier in a generation.
37

Bejjy,

17/06/2008 20:12:18
To fight the country's crime culture the SNP government are proposing to jail the population of Scotland in order to solve the problem. So simplistic isn't it; punish the majority for the sins of the few.
38

ruthie,

lothian 17/06/2008 20:25:24
Thank goodness we finally have a government that is trying to address the problems facing Scotland. "When drink's in wit's oot," as my granny used to say.
39

Kiltie Kiltie Caldbum,

3 sters up 17/06/2008 20:27:36
#36 Monkey man, were you dropped on your head as a baby, perhaps you came down from the trees too soon. Let's all just tax ourselves into oblivion.
40

Indespair,

17/06/2008 20:40:57
For all those visiting in the great home coming - WELCOME TO BANNED IT COUNTRY.
41

Karin,

17/06/2008 20:57:56
We already have laws to prevent children buying alcohol and to take action against people who get drunk and make a nusciance of themselves. Why aren't these enforced? And how will these proposals make them easier to enforce?

The high price and difficulty of obtaining illegal drugs doesn't deter the addicted, and these proposals won't do anything to tackle addiction and violence in Scotland. They will however make the lives of ordinary people who just happen to enjoy a drink more difficult.

I'm glad I've moved to another country, where good beer is 50p a bottle and drink-fuelled problems are rare.
42

alexandermc,

san francisco 17/06/2008 20:58:52
I totally agree that taxing everyone is unfair. That being said we need a solution. As a doctor, who has practiced both sides of the pond substance abuse is everywhere. Kids seek and abuse. In too many homes it is OK to come home drunk as a young teenager. If the kid does not learn in home about how to handle him/her self it will not happen. It is apparently socially accepted for kids to get drunk every weekend, that is a fact. We need to change that perspective, taxing will not do it, parenting will!! It is not a nice sight to see young teenagers being sick in George street on a Saturday or waiting for late night bus on Princes St.
43

amf73,

edin 17/06/2008 21:06:54
watch the snp drop their plans for 16 year olds to vote
44

Angus McIonnach,

Embra 17/06/2008 21:08:40
"I can't decide if child abuse laws should be abandoned or if immigration laws should be scrapped. After, if we beleive in free markets, surely anything goes?"

Why should I have to live under laws just cos some folk murder and steal?"

The sad thing is, in setting up and knocking down these laughably flimsy strawmen, this commenter probably thought he was being somehow incisive.

I bring enlightement: crazily enough, allowing adults to buy alcohol in off-licenses is not tantamount to being in favour of legalised paedophilia.

And being opposed to a stupid blanket ban on something is not the same as being opposed to a law against murder.

Mind you, I do think there should perhaps be an IQ test before you're allowed to post comments on the internet.
45

amf73,

edin 17/06/2008 21:09:57
lots of people including this so called government seem to think that putting prices up and raising the age limit ill solve all the problems over under 21s will always get someone to buy the drink for them and they will just club their money together to buy it
46

angus the clock,

Nova Scotia 17/06/2008 21:34:59
Nedism and drunken yobs here in New Scotland are treated to chop wood and shovel snow parties for the seniors, and in the summer cleaning the roadsides.
And if you are a persistent offender US holidays to sunny Florida are out of the question.
Perhaps removal of some privelages might be a better step than taxing the stuff as they will only steal to get the additional cost of their favourite aperitif and degustations.



47

Calum Crubag,

17/06/2008 22:26:33
Most laws are blanket bans.

Ou could just as well argue that we should have NO traffic laws because only a minority kill with cars. Or the same about all sorts of unpleasant crimes.

As far as i can see, it's not just neds but people across the classes that are over-drinking, if doctors are to be beleived. Should we also legalise drugs then?
48

monkey man,

17/06/2008 22:31:25
The social problems associated with alcohol cost Britain tens of millions of pounds each year.

Violence outside pubs and clubs, drunk drivers, domestic violence, broken families due to addiction, employment loss,etc,. The list is endless.

It never fails to amaze me the lax attitude to alcohol compared to the smoking ban issue. We've got our priorities wrong and its about time it was remedied.
49

Angus McIonnach,

17/06/2008 22:44:02
"Most laws are blanket bans."

Lets ban knives - they kill people.
50

bring them on,

17/06/2008 22:58:59
If you introduced the death penalty for underage drinking it would not eradicate the problem.

The thought that the government's proposals might be the solution suggests to me that the people in power either have no idea what the real causes are, or they couldnae care less anyway.
51

Encarta,

17/06/2008 23:25:16
Kenny MacAskill was all over the place in his interview with Gordon Brewer on McNewsnight.

The news media generally seems to be arguing the case for students going to a party being unable to buy a carry-out.

Are students who are under-21 a breed apart from under-21s who actually get out of bed in the morning to do a job of economic benefit to the general population?

52

,

17/06/2008 23:40:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
53

ex_lege,

Glasgow 17/06/2008 23:43:18
Encarta, I think student is just a cack-handed shorthand for responsible young person.

Anyway, as a student I think it's my duty to get drunk as often as my student loan allows me to, as do all of my friends. Why then have none of us even had more than a passing conversation with a policeman? Is it possible that it's because we all have good parents and "life-prospects", unlike the average buckie-laden ned? Still, I suppose it's far easier to slip into authoritarian mode than tackle the tough societal problems in Scotland. I have no idea why preventing me and every other law abiding 20 year-old (i.e. most of us) from purchasing an aperitif from the co-op on the way home from uni is a panacea to Scotland's crime problem.

This £2 billion loss figure constantly quoted, is it net of the tax intake from alcohol, breweries, pubs etc? I genuinely don't know and would be interested to know if it is.
54

Singlepoint,

Fife 18/06/2008 02:10:34
Being old enough to vote should mean being able to fully participate in adult society but yet those aged 18-20 are not allowed to buy alcohol from other than a pub or equivalent? This age anomaly is also seen in the minimum wage structure where adults aged 22+ are served a higher minimum wage than those adults aged 18-21.

The underage consumption of alcohol is caused by the sellers being either hoodwinked or subversive and I cannot be sure which entity is the greater albeit in these subversive days I’ll wager it is the latter. What I am sure of is that as with the taking away of firearms from law-abiding people leading to only criminals owning firearms, those who illegally drink will continue and multiply whilst only the law-abiding will be restricted albeit I am well understanding that law-abiding people will only remain so up to a point.

Whereas a minimum price for alcohol coupled with the age-raising aspect would, if it were possible so to bring about, have some adverse effect for underage drinkers, it would not have any effect on the binge-drinking of the 18+ unless the binge-drinking is wholly due to the cheapness of booze at off-licences and licensed supermarkets compared to pubs and the like which it is not so due, which is to say, the binge-drinking of the 18+ will continue despite the here intervention and that must surely be patently obvious to the seemingly far misplaced Messrs MacAskill and Sturgeon.

It seems to me that an upfront ‘social responsibility fee’ would amount to a presumption of guilt which ‘pseudo-judicial finding’ would fall foul of Article 6 of the Convention if not common sense and decency. If not, the same could be arbitrarily applied to tobacconists, petrol stations, car-salesrooms etc. Similarly, a democratic government could not set a minimum selling price of alcoholic drinks any more than it could set a minimum price for cheese, sugar etc? All in all if it casually had such power as seems from the proposals it would be
55

Singlepoint,

Fife 18/06/2008 02:11:15
a dictatorship would it not?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.