Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 19th December 2009

Drink prices crackdown 'to hit whisky exports for £600 million'

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: 05 November 2009
WHISKY chiefs have made the extraordinary claim that the SNP's policy of minimum pricing on alcohol will cost the flagship Scottish industry a massive £600 million a year in lost export sales.
Whisky graphic


As MSPs meet today to debate the controversial alcohol crackdown, the Scotch Whisky Association claimed that the plans would wipe out 20 per cent of the entire overseas market.

They claim that foreign countries are desperate to slap higher import tariffs on Scotch and will use Scotland's own minimum price policy to enact their own "copycat" measures.

But SNP ministers last night denied the claims, and went on the offensive, calling on the drinks trade to come up with its own solution to Scotland's £2 billion-a-year drink problem.

The centrepiece of a bill, to be published later this month, is a plan to impose a 40p-per-unit minimum price on all alcohol sold in Scotland. New analysis released by the Scottish Government yesterday showed how cheap spirits, ciders and beers would all increase in price by between £1 and £3.50. However, more costly branded drinks would not be affected.

But the whisky industry says the wider knock-on impact of the minimum price scheme has not been measured.

The whisky trade is pointing to countries such as South Korea which has previously tried to slap a higher health tax on Scotch to protect its weaker home-grown Soju. It also fears copycat legislation in Scotch-importing countries including France, Thailand and Venezuela.

Whisky bosses say if a Scottish minimum price was introduced, such countries could point to it as a way of avoiding the usual free-trade rules which bar discrimination against imports.

David Williamson, spokesman for the Scotch Whisky Association, said: "On the basis of studies into Scotch whisky's price sensitivity, the industry estimates that £600m in whisky exports every year are threatened as the government proposal gives the green light to export markets to discriminate against Scotch whisky."

However, a Scottish Government spokesman said: "One Scot is dying an alcohol-related death every three hours and taxpayers are footing a £2.25bn annual bill. As a government, it would be totally irresponsible for us to ignore this issue."

Much of the attention today will fall on the Labour group at Holyrood, which has yet to say whether or not it will back the minimum pricing policy. If it does support the SNP, there would be a parliamentary majority in favour.

However, there is growing speculation that it will oppose the plans, meaning that the SNP's proposals would fall.

Speaking to The Scotsman, former leader Jack McConnell, who introduced the smoking ban as First Minister, said that he believed a minimum price policy was "the wrong priority".

He said: "I think the strategy of making alcohol more expensive for the decent majority of people rather than concentrating on enforcement and stopping the lawbreaking and abuse of alcohol is a flawed strategy."

But Theresa Fyffe, director of the Royal College of Nursing Scotland, said: "We fully support plans for minimum pricing for alcohol, alongside other measures, to tackle the harm caused by problem drinking."





Page 1 of 1

 
1

The Real Rufus T Firefly,

04/11/2009 23:53:24
Dear oh Dear.

The SNP is trying single-handedly to destroy Scotland's Whisky Industry.

Not only are they anti-Glasgow they are also anti-Whisky.

The SNP are going to take a tanking in Glasgow North East (and quite rightly so).
2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 00:08:32

I did say this a while back,,,,
,,"the demise of the Scottish Whisky Industry is on the cards, after the SNP policies of ludicrous super taxing alcohol".

3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 00:12:35

As everyone else suffers the supertaxing of alcohol, the biggest laugh of all, is that the ones that this supertaxing of alcohol is meant to prevent drinking soo much, will not be affected atall, and will still abuse alcohol.



4

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 00:13:17

WELL DONE,....NOT!

5

Hobbe,

05/11/2009 00:15:30
"WHISKY chiefs have made the extraordinary claim that the SNP's policy of minimum pricing on alcohol will cost the flagship Scottish industry a massive £600 million a year in lost export sales."

Aye.

It is an "extraordinary claim" right enough.

SNP are pro Glasgow.....by the way.

In fact, they are pro Scotland over Westminster, something the 'opposition' need to learn something about.
6

Aberdeenshire Creepy Scot,

05/11/2009 00:21:28
This would never have happened in an independent Scotland. We would have whisky comin oot oor taps.
7

,

05/11/2009 00:54:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

,

05/11/2009 00:56:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

,

05/11/2009 01:00:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

,

05/11/2009 01:01:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 01:18:47

Jack McConnell said quote,
"I think the strategy of making alcohol more expensive for the decent majority of people rather than concentrating on enforcement and stopping the lawbreaking and abuse of alcohol is a flawed strategy."

How Very True!, pity others do not have the sense to see and know this.



12

,

05/11/2009 01:29:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

Julian.,

edinburgh 05/11/2009 01:51:52
#12

So the only available options are asking teenagers not to binge drink or hammering everyone, including the 95% who drink responsibly?

14

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 02:07:21

#12.

I never make comment without just-cause, I have been on the front line, as it were, I Know the teens antics, of obtaining their alcohol, price will not deter them!, I Know the older ones on State Benefits, who find it fit to drink alcohol all day, each and every day, and Again 'Price Will Not Deter Them'!,
If you had ever lived life, and have witnessed life as I have done, you would Know this Fact!



15

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 02:18:56

Price only affects the innocent majority, like our Scottish Whisky Industry, who up till now, have been in business for 100s of years, it is despicable they are now threatened into insolvency, by Laws made for the few who Abuse, and come 'Hell or High Water', will still see fit to abuse Alcohol,,,
Call this any sort of justice? I sure do Not!

16

Julian.,

edinburgh 05/11/2009 02:55:05
Charles has a point. In countries like Spain and France where alcohol is cheap they don't have the same problem. Whereas in Scandinavia where alcohol is expensive they have similar problems to us.

Come down like a ton of bricks on those who cause crimes as a result of drink. Ban them from consuming or buying the stuff if need be...with prison sentences for those who flout the ban.
17

Baggy Troosers,

05/11/2009 03:19:28
This article is just Nonsense and hearsay ,mind you it's enough to get the Juices flowing from The Real Rupert t Fly.
18

Aldi Shopper,

Irvine 05/11/2009 05:15:27
It will not effect exports of whisky as minimum pricing is for the home market. This story is just another load of Scotsman rubbish. One day this paper will return to being a newspaper but then it may go under before then.
19

,

05/11/2009 06:33:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
20

fife runner,

05/11/2009 06:38:06
how will it hit exports when the minimum price applies to domestic markets? good comment by Government is what will the drinks industry do (to help fund the extra police time, ambulance time wasted , and the costs to the NHS?)

In my opinion it is industry pressure being applied to a democratically elected Government.

So £600m against the billion or so to the NHS. Its a no brainer as they say.
21

Anna nexr door,

05/11/2009 06:39:10
Dear oh Dear!! it seems meat head is back with his Anto Scottish garbage.
Linskaill, Is all you think about is cheep boose? Get a life.
22

Baggy Troosers,

05/11/2009 06:41:23
#16

Charles ,you need to read the other article entitled
"Only cheapest booze hit by price plans" before you comment,it may alleviate your fears.

I dont necessarily agree with this policy but i dont think it will effect the sales of Whisky and the likes one iota,after all you dont see the neds swigging from Whisky bottles all day long ,i think the likes of Whisky is already out of their price range and they only tank up on the cheapest option.
23

fife runner,

05/11/2009 06:41:54
#16 so France etc have no issues apart from high liver disease rates. As for Sweden they have high pricing but not the same probs.
24

fife runner,

05/11/2009 06:45:37
anyway only cheap booze will be hit. Unless some of you do drink Buckie. Most problems are caused by cheap loss leaders as many tank up before venturing forth.

So if the drinks industry is being serious they could stop supermarkets selling booze as loss leader.
25

Mc Max ,

05/11/2009 07:10:13
Whos Jack Mcdonall?
An Insignificant little Slab man no doubt.
How come Joke isnae in Malawi?
26

Aberdeenshire Creepy Scot,

05/11/2009 07:18:48
There could be fireworks tonight. I will be using my old buckfast bottles as launchpads for my intergallactic space rockets.
27

Gary Inserik,

Nova Scotia 05/11/2009 07:39:07
The solution is simple.

Less duty charged on whisky for export. Or:

The whisky industry rise to the challenge and make more whisky to plug the gap. That would mean more distilleries, or mothballed ones brought back on line. It would have the happy incidental of creating more jobs and sharing the wealth that generally disappears into only a handful of pockets.

So there you go Whisky association - stop whinging and get on with upping your production. Or are you cowards?
28

Itchy,

05/11/2009 07:47:12
#12 "So it has to be done through price control"

Rubbish.

This move is just an attempt by the SNP to nationalise the drinks industry. It is not designed to curb binge drinking as they do not enforce the laws already in place.

It is a move, in short, worthy of New Labour.
29

hibbydoug,

edinburgh 05/11/2009 07:47:20
How can the likes of France put a tax on whisky ? we are in the common market-not allowed so no prob there , South Korea-who cares ?. What a load of rubbish by the whisky industry, anyway so what if distilleries close if that is the price to pay for stopping the carnage to our society.
30

Itchy,

05/11/2009 07:48:47
#20 "In my opinion it is industry pressure being applied to a democratically elected Government."

Well, that makes it all right then. Because they were elected, the government can do anything.
31

Itchy,

05/11/2009 07:49:31
#29 typical tax and ban Fascist.
"anyway so what if distilleries close if that is the price to pay for stopping the carnage to our society."

32

gus1940,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 07:51:23
How many of our binge drinking yobs drink whisky? Very few.
33

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/11/2009 08:29:42
The SWA is talking out of its backside.

1. £600m sales are "threatened" - in other words, they have added up the total sales into countries which *might* enact retaliatory tariffs, and pretended it is a real number. Garbage.

2. The only possible retaliation would have to come from countries who export *cheap* alcohol to here. That certainly isn't the French, nor the South Koreans, nor the Venezualans, nor the Thais!

3. Whisky is currently cheaper to buy in all of those countries than it is here, but whisky is not marketed on price in any of those areas. So even if tariffs were introduced, they would have very little effect on sales.

The SWA needs to stop talking rubbish and accept that we have a major problem with drink in this country, and they need to be part of the solution.
34

Gary Inserik,

Nova Scotia 05/11/2009 08:34:48
Well put Duncan!

For too long these types of Associations have had it too easy.

As you say, be part of the solution, not the problem.
35

Mikey,

Carstairs Junction 05/11/2009 08:42:45
#16, never mind locking them up etc. Just ban them from pubs and offies. Circulate their photos to these premises and make the staff memorise the photos.

But it might drive them to drugs, I hear you say. So what! Who cares?
36

SwissToni,

Speyside 05/11/2009 08:43:29
When The SWA gets involved in anything, I usually take anything they say with a HUGE pinch of salt. The following link is a good example

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/thebudget/Budget-2009-Few-cheers-as.5196852.jp

Compare what they were saying in April against the healthy profits that all distillers have reported since. The SWA have done more harm to The Scotch Whisky Industry in recent years because they are no longer credible – crying “wolf” all the time tends to get you ignored after a while
37

Adamantium,

Glasgow 05/11/2009 08:48:52
A 75cl bottle of wine with alcohol volume 12% contains 12 units, at £0.40 min per unit it's £4.80 a bottle. That's still less than a pack of cigarettes. What's all the fuss about?
38

Americanbob,

05/11/2009 08:49:53

#'s 2,3 & 4 Chuckles,

How many times must it be said, this is NOT a tax on alcohol!

It is a minimum pricing policy, and probably illegal under EU regulations, consequently it is unlikely to ever come to fruition!
39

Mèths,

05/11/2009 08:51:35
"Foreign countries are desperate to slap higher import
tariffs on Scotch and will use Scotland's own minimum price policy to enact their own "copycat" measures."

Why? The current tax on alcohol in the UK is already high. Foreign countries currently don't slap a high tax on whisky. Why can I buy a malt whisky here at 2/3 of the price in the UK?
40

Mèths,

05/11/2009 08:52:19
... and if the pound weren't as weak as it is, I'd get the malt for half the price.
41

Mèths,

05/11/2009 08:52:41
BTW - hello. I've been away for a few days.
42

The Ayrshire Bard,

05/11/2009 08:54:00
#14 Charles
Usually I'm your critic but on this one I agree with you.
Youngsters will always get around restrictions.
Anyway, the SNP will have to face up to the might of the supermarkets through the courts before they get this off the ground. My money's on the retailers.
43

Front Street,

Grange Court 05/11/2009 09:45:11
#1.."Not only are they anti-Glasgow"

Not proven..what is proven is the fact that Glasgow has more money thrown at it than any other place..how on earth can that be anti-Glasgow?
44

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 05/11/2009 10:23:00
There are many sound arguments against the minimum pricing proposals but the SWA is 'way off the mark.

First, the existing UK duty of over £6 a bottle (plus the VAT on the duty!) on whisky is far above the level of duty charged in the majority of other countries. If the over-taxing of spirits in the UK was a factor in the level of duty in these other countries, they would have reacted many years ago.

Second, this is a purely indigenous Scottish proposal not UK wide and, like it or lump it, I don't believe a regional minimum pricing policy will be noticed in global terms.

Third, the proposals do not differentiate between domestically produced drinks and imported drinks so there can be no hint of protectionism.

Fourth, it will be a minimum price tariff and not a tax or duty.

The SWA has battled long and hard against unfair protectionist import tariffs in other countries where there are high import tariffs on non-domestic alcohol - India being the prime example. This is a just cause which has received considerable support from the EU and from the WTO, both of which have threatened trade sanctions against those countries. However, this excellent work by the SWA could be undermined by their specious argument against local minimum pricing.

Personally, I believe that the present broad-brush system of duty on alcohol content is also unfair on Scotch. There is a world of difference between a drink that requires such careful and skilful husbandry in its production and lengthy maturation and the likes of gin or vodka that are basically a short, cheap industrial process.

45

Maurice,

05/11/2009 10:28:32
Scottish Whisky sold overseas in an off-license is still a dammn side cheaper than it is directly from a distillery here (Over £500 per bottle of 50 yo malt.) OK, extreme example but who buys 50 yo in Scotland just to get bevvied on? I do declare however that it is still outpriced overseas and countries like South Africa have found a market in producing the likes of "Bains Mountain Whiskey". It is an outstanding malt using the mountain water filtered through the fynbos of the South Western Cape Mountains.

These lower priced/high quality malts will eventually eat up your market, except in America where so many people wish to be Scottish but theyr'e still learning.

In the 5 cold years i've lived in Scotland, I have never seen a broken whisky bottle lying on the street. Vodka, yes. Buckfast and white lightning cider, yes but never a whisky bottle. So why penalise the industry. Dumb holy-rude.
Incidently, why is whisky produced here and sold abroad 43% alch/vol whereas the same brand is only 40% here? Is scotch watered down? Schemey bustids
46

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 05/11/2009 10:44:50
#42
As you say, the supermarkets will almost certainly win. If the minimum price tariff is going to work, one essential part of the proposals must be the banning of advertising cheap booze . . . but virtually all the TV advertising is through UK-wide broadcasters. Is the Scottish Government going to stop all those satellite channels being beamed into Scottish homes?

Surely there is also the question of discrimmination against Scottish retailers - particularly those in the Borders. Or are they going to set up border patrols to stop Scots popping into Berwick or Carlisle for their weekly shop?

The proposals are not likely to result in an increase in the price of most drinks but they are very unfair and, more importantly, they are perceived to be very unfair. The most likely effect will be a massive upsurge in booze-cruises and bootleg alcohol sales (but, unfortunately for the likes of myself, Rosyth is a long, long way from Sutherland!).

Surely the answer to alcohol-related problems lies with the enforcement of existing legislation and not with the introduction of further unpopular and unenforcable laws?

47

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/11/2009 10:46:12
#45 As you say, whisky is not a cheap drink, and is therefore not the chosen drink of alcohol abusers. What appears to have escaped you is that it is for precisely that reason that minimum per-unit pricing will have minimal impact on whisky! 40p per unit would make the minimum cost of a bottle of whisky around £11. How many bottles of whisky are sold for less than this now? Not very many!
48

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 10:51:33
I couldn't be more against the stupid idea to set minimum prices if I tried, however I don't see the logic being followed by the Scotch Whisky Association.

"They claim that foreign countries are desperate to slap higher import tariffs on Scotch and will use Scotland's own minimum price policy to enact their own "copycat" measures."

I doubt it. It might happen but I honestly don't think that foreign governments are stupid enough to do something like that.

I'm more concerned about the price rises this madness would cause ACROSS THE BOARD if it ever gets passed.
49

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 05/11/2009 10:53:25
#45
Yes, most of it is watered down. After ten years or so of alcohol evaporation in an oak cask, most malts come out at around 60-65% abv and, at that strength, the taste of the alcohol usually overpowers the taste of the whisky. In any case, you would pay half again the amount of duty on a 60% abv whisky compared with 40%. Most malts, by the way, are sold at 43% in the UK.

Vodka, gin, rum, brandy, etc. is also watered down before bottling - so you might as well stick to Scotch!


50

Front Street,

Grange Court 05/11/2009 10:54:18
#47.."£11. How many bottles of whisky are sold for less than this now? Not very many!"

Actually these are the supermarket top sellers. :-)
51

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/11/2009 11:02:09
#50 In Sainsbury's, Bell's, Grant's, Whyte & Mackay and Teacher's retail at around £14 a bottle, Grouse a shade more, and only their own brand blend sells for (slightly) less than £11.

I can't imagine standard prices vary that much in different supermarkets, and surely these are the leading sellers?

Of course there isn't a malt that comes close to that price point either.

So I'm not sure I accept your point.
52

Jo Public,

05/11/2009 11:32:03
#1. This is backed by the butcher's apron lot in Westminster so please keep up.
53

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 05/11/2009 11:40:36
Jack McConnell said: "I think the strategy of making alcohol more expensive for the decent majority of people rather than concentrating on enforcement and stopping the lawbreaking and abuse of alcohol is a flawed strategy." Alcohol will not be more expensive for the decent majority of people. The decent majority do not get rat=faced on cheap gut-rot cider.

And as for whisky, the price of that will be mainly unchanged. The only cheap whisky is the supermarket own brands and they are provided by only one or two whisky producers who want to sell bulk. The problem is the supermarkets not the whisky companies. Perhaps the Government should enter into an agreement with the big supermarkets on a minimum price requirement, if they wish to retain their alcohol licences. Instead of having a minimum price per unit enforceable in law, perhaps a guidance to licencing authorities that where alcohol is sold below a minimum level will be regarded as conduct likely to cause the licence to be suspended or revoked. The weights and measures departments could be charged with the duty of checking it. Alcohol is not a commodity of the free market. It is sold under licence.

As far as I understand the minimum price is to apply only to the end purchaser. The wholesale trade, all of whom will have been licenced to sell alcohol, can sell below that price to each other. All invoices of products could display the minimum prices that they can be sold at to the public. Simple really. The minimum prices should be tied to the grant of a retail licence.
54

,

05/11/2009 11:47:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
55

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 12:06:18
#53:

"The current trend is to make alcohol more readily available and to make it cheaper."

Good. Long may it continue.

I fail to see why people are so stupid as to actually moan because prices are TOO LOW. Are they really that stupid?
56

Itchy,

05/11/2009 12:25:12
#33 "The SWA needs to stop talking rubbish and accept that we have a major problem with drink in this country, and they need to be part of the solution."

The problem with drink lies with the individual.

Using your reasoning, food companies are at fault for obesity.

#57 When you grow up, you will realise that you are a Fascist who cannot comprehend free will.
57

fife runner,

05/11/2009 12:39:42
#58 do you really believe in allowing people free reign to imbibe as they please then it impinges on the rest of us. EG waiting for an ambulance if you or a loved one is in dire need because it has gone to deal with some alcohol fuelled incident. NHS costs of billions which could be better spent on healthcare, police time etc etc . If having free will to take on as much alcohol as you like and it impinges on my rights then I am afraid that type of so called free will is something we could all do without.
58

fife runner,

05/11/2009 12:42:27
also #58 we have road traffic laws to stop people having free reign to drive as they please. so we do need regulations to alleviate the impingement on us by those who cannot care less about how much they cost the rest of us in lost NHS time for eg.
59

fife runner,

05/11/2009 12:43:39
#58 suppose you would not mind noisy neighbours playing music till all hours as it is their free will to do so?
60

SwissToni,

Speyside 05/11/2009 12:51:26
#56, when you grow up, you will cringe when you realise what a dick you were

Class!! ^_^
61

Miss H,

05/11/2009 13:06:08
What a load of nonsense this is. 3 basic points.

1. Minimum pricing applies to the price that alcohol is sold by RETAILERS IN SCOTLAND. The Scottish Government has no powers to set a minimum price at which whisky can be sold in other countries.

2. The Scotch Whisky Association knows this fine well. What they really object to is the idea of the Scottish Government intervening in the market in any way because they are run by ideological free marketeers who oppose regulation of the market on principle.

3. The Lib Dems in England support minimum pricing - the Lib Dems in Scotland oppose it. The Tories in England support minimum pricing - the Tories in Scotland oppose it. The UK Labour Government is actively considering it. Various Scottish Labour MSPs have publicly supported minimum pricing in the past including Charlie Gordon, Mary Mulligan, Richard Simpson and Malcolm Chisolm. If these people and their Lib Dem and Tory colleagues oppose the SNP on minimum pricing it will therefore be entirely opportunistic. Opposition for the sake of opposition.
62

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 13:11:42
#59:

"do you really believe in allowing people free reign to imbibe as they please"

Yes. It's called freedom of choice.
63

Miss H,

05/11/2009 13:19:39
64 People will still have free reign to imbibe as they please. If someone wants to drink themselves to death no-one is stopping them. What is being proposed is to regulate the market in which alcohol is sold. Libertaians will object to that - fair enough, libertarians would think it was OK to buy heroin at Asda for 20p a shot as it is up to the individual to decide if they want to kill themselves with heroin, as it is up to the individual to decide if they want to kill themselves with alcohol. But most people are not libetarians. Most of us think that there is such a thing as society and people should not be able to peddle drugs, be it heroin or alcohol, in a completely irresponsible way.
64

fife runner,

05/11/2009 13:19:49
#64 but you did not answer my other points.
65

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 13:21:11
Miss H:

Read this:-

"They claim that foreign countries are desperate to slap higher import tariffs on Scotch and will use Scotland's own minimum price policy to enact their own "copycat" measures."

No-one is pretending that the Scottish Government has any juristiction abroad.

However, as I have said before, I don't see that happening myself. Foreign governments don't normally tend to be made up of stupid, nanny state, puritanical nazis.
66

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 13:25:07
#66:

I'm copying the government. I'm only answering the questions that suit me. :-)

I'm sure you are only too painfully aware of my take on the supposed "alcohol problem" in Scotland so I won't bother re-itterating it.

As far as I am concerned, people can drink as much as they want and drink should be as cheap as possible. The only caveat I put on that is that they should be able to HANDLE their drink.
67

Macd123,

05/11/2009 13:29:40
Who are this responsible majority who drink moderately?

I haven't met them.

Do they drink White Lightning moderately?
Maybe a small glass of Special Brew with dinner?
68

Miss H,

05/11/2009 13:30:11
67 Why don't you read it again yourself?

They claim that other countries will use "Scotland's own minimum price policy to enact their own "copycat" measures."

This is just nonsense and the SWA knows it. The SNP's minimum pricing policy has no impact on competition rules because it applies to all alcoholic drinks AT THE POINT OF SALE. It applies to imports and domestically produced alcohol equally. There is no way that other countries can "retaliate" unless they also introduced a minimum price for the sale of alcohol which would apply equally to all alcoholic products.
69

fife runner,

05/11/2009 13:30:25
#68 then you have no real argument.

Hold on are you being a bit too tongue in cheek. As Mcinroe used to say "you cannot be serious".

A drunk will say he/ she can handle their drink. What do you mean by handle their drink?

70

fife runner,

05/11/2009 13:31:23
#68 do not just give another non answer
71

fife runner,

05/11/2009 13:34:59
#68 will only answer that he lives in some kind of haze and has shut himself off from what is happening in society.
72

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 13:40:45
Miss H:

Comparing alcohol to heroin is like comparing tapioca to paraquat.

If you use heroine in any measure at all, the likelihood is that you will become addicted. In real life, almost all users do end up as addicts eventually. Secondly, heroin has such a powerful effect on your mind that it can affect lots of other areas of your life very badly.

Conversely, with alcohol, millions of people drink regularly, and sometimes to excess yet very few of them become addicts. Although excessive alcohol consumption can affect other areas of your life, it rarely affects things to the same extent or with the same immediacy that heroin does.
73

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 13:47:18
#71:

"What do you mean by handle their drink?"

I mean you being in control of drink rather than drink being in control of you---in both the long and short term.

Examples are:-

1. Being able to conduct yourself in a manner appropriate to the circumstances.
2. Not acting like an idiot
3. Thinking about the consequences of what you are doing
4. Not starting trouble
5. Being able to give the impression of not having drunk to excess
6. Showing recpect for others
7. Being able to perform the next day if you are required to
8. Being able to remember what happened the night before
9. Having fun as opposed to merely being as loud and obnoxious as possible
10. The ability to socialise with those who haven't been drinking as well as those who have been

In short mate... Common sense.
74

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 13:53:42
Fife & Miss H:

If you are so in favour of paying more for your drink then be my guest. Pay the shop price and then send the difference between that and what you think you should be paying to me.

I do not have a problem if you encourage all your friends to do likewise.

I'll solve all your problems for you if you really want to pay more for your drink.
75

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/11/2009 14:03:14
#75 We have been down this little road before as well...

Given that you have enumerated this list, then please explain how you would respond to someone who refuses to abide by one of these requirements. Most of them are not against the law in isolation. Of course everyone would prefer if ever alcohol user followed this list. But they don't. So how do you respond to that?
76

fife runner,

05/11/2009 14:07:54
#75 is it common sense to have alcohol as a loss leader?
77

fife runner,

05/11/2009 14:09:17
come on you must live in some kind of utopia.
78

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 15:05:26
Duncan:

If it needs to be explained to someone then they will never get it. You can't explain "common sense", it just "is". Likewise, you can't explain to someone how to handle their drink. Either they take the trouble to learn to do so or they are too stupid to bother.

In the past, here are some measures "the lads" took against non-handlers:-

1. Constant, unrelenting p*ss-taking
2. Refusal to buy them a drink (usually after they had stood everyone else a round)
3. Left out of party invites
4. Getting called a p**f
5. Telling the landlord that they were underage (sometimes they were).
6. Nicking their pint

I could go on and on...

Fife:

"is it common sense to have alcohol as a loss leader?"

Yes. Why shouldn't it be? The purpose of a loss leader is to get people into the store. If they time it right, then sometimes an offer on drink might do the job perfectly.
79

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 15:12:20
#79:

"come on you must live in some kind of utopia."

Far from it mate. My utopia would be a place where petrol is no more than 50p per litre, speed cameras, bus lanes and traffic calming measures did not exist, car tax was £100 per car across the board, alcohol duty was half what it is now, tobacco duty was a tenth what it is now, smoking was permitted everywhere except where there was a danger of fire or explosion and politically correct nannies were locked up.

what I am after now is more like damage limitation.
80

fife runner,

05/11/2009 15:19:29
Fuel head, yes but that is in so called civil company. How would you deal with drunken teenagers egged on by their parents. Drunks staggering out of pubs. Drunks in A&E abusing staff , high levels of ambulance time and police time being taken up. High levels of disease and lost work time. All in all costing us all billions.
You believe it is up to the individual but of that means me or my family waiting on an abulance or being assaulted by some drunks, or having my sleep broken etc etc then I am afraid my welfare takes precedence.

Take it you do not mind your taxes being wasted in this way but you mind drink costing you more. Bit strange thinking.
81

fife runner,

05/11/2009 15:21:34
#81 now you are taking the p.ss. Tongue in cheek come to mind. All along I thought you were serious but now I know you are not.
82

fife runner,

05/11/2009 15:23:51
#81 but if tobacco taxes were lower how would we get smokers killing themselves and paying for the priveledge of more into the coffers of the tax man.
83

Miss H,

05/11/2009 15:29:28
76 I am not going to pay more for what I drink because I am in fact a moderate drinker. These plans will not affect moderate drinkers. At the most you might pay a couple of extra quid.
84

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 05/11/2009 16:02:11
#57
If you are seriously suggesting that a minimum price of 40p per unit will "stop someone from drinking a bottle of whisky in their own home every night then costing us hundreds of thousands of pounds in medical care" then you must be looking through the bottom of a rose-tinred glass.

As I see it, these proposals are primarily aimed at those very cheap ciders, lagers, beers and alcopops which are bought by, or for, young people. Under the existing Licensing Acts - supplemented by bylaws throughout most of Scotland - it is not only illegal to sell alcohol to under-eighteens but also illegal to sell it for consumption by under-eighteens in most public places. The one place where it is legal for under-eighteens (as long as they are over five) to drink is in their home but, even then, the adult who purchased the alcohol has a legal duty of care to ensure that any minors that drink it do so without endangering themselves in any way.

Just how do you suggest that a minimum unit price would do a better job than this existing legislation?

Holyrood and Westminster have both been guilty of churning out reams of badly thought out, faddish legislation over the past ten years and, in doing so, all they do is cloud the real issues and bring the law into disrepute. Minimum pricing is a classic example.





85

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/11/2009 16:07:01
#86 "Just how do you suggest that a minimum unit price would do a better job than this existing legislation?"

No-one is suggesting replacing the current legislation with this, so your question is bizarre. But minimum pricing would improve on the current state of play by placing an immoveable price barrier in the way of those young people determined to circumvent the law.

I would have thought that was pretty obvious.
86

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 05/11/2009 16:24:36
#87
I was replying to the post at #57 and, in any case, I merely said that minimum pricing will be no more effective than existing legislation in tackluing the primary problem.

To answer your own point, the law is not being circumvented by young people - it is being circumvented by retailers and those who purchase alcohol irresponsibly for young people. Surely responsible legislators should seek to enforce existing laws rather than dream up new ones?


87

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 05/11/2009 16:27:51
#87
And surely it is obvious that it is better to prevent all young people from purchasing alcohol rather than just those that can't afford to stump up 40p per unit?
88

Maurice,

05/11/2009 16:27:56
49
Jacqueline Hyde ,On the shelf: I am sorry to disagree. Just returned from a trip from Dundee Tesco and there wasnt a single bottle of spirit, Malt or otherwise at more than 40%.
Distillers and the KWV in SA would not allow any alchoholic beverage to be called a spirit unless it reaches the std. 43%. This is the same everywhere I have been except the UK. In a good brandy or cognac it does make a difference same as a red whine at 10% would not be the same
89

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 17:06:16
Fife:

I'm not taking the p*ss. You mentioned Utopia and I gave you a bit of an insight into what my idea of it would be. Let's face it, that's the way things used to be and it worked perfectly well.

As for the rest of it, The behaviour you mention stems from one thing---the fact that many people simply do not know how to handle their drink and how to behave. You have always had the minority irresponsible element and you always will have. This is not the subject of this debate.

The problem is the increasing number of youngsters who simply do not know how to handle their drink because until they were 18, their first experience of drink was unsupervised in a park somewhere. They had no onus upon them to behave themselves or act responsibly under the influence. As a consequence, they do not know how to---or even that there is a requirement to do so.

This is because of the over-zealous enforcement of pub age limits. When I was 16, we all went down the pub on friday nights. We knew we were breaking the law and the truth be known, so did the landlords and even the police. However, we were only allowed in the pubs under suffrance. We had to behave ourselves and act like adults. If we didn't do that, we would be out on our ears.

As a result, we learned how to handle our drink. We learned respect. We learned how to behanve ourselves. If an older bloke came up to us and asked us to keep the noise down it wasn't "f**k off grandad" it was "Sorry mate. Can I get you a drink?". On the way home we behaved ourselves as well because we knew full well that if we got into trouble with the police, they would have thrown the book at us for drinking as well.

When we were 18, we didn't suddenly forget the last two years learning process. By then we appreciated that the way we were behaving was THE WAY to behave and hence carried on down that route. The youngsters of today don't have the benefit of that because of the brain-dead enforcement. There's no quick fix for this p
90

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 17:06:44
(cont)

There's no quick fix for this problem but carrying on down the route of ever tightening laws and ever more rigid enforcement is simply going to make matters worse. We need to start backing off.
91

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 17:12:28
...and incidentally, the idiot minority that I was talking about were banned from the pubs---many even after they had turned 18.
92

Gdgy,

05/11/2009 17:37:47
The official SNP may be "pro-Glasgow" as some SNPites claim but there is no evidence for this idea...but there is plenty of evidence that SNPites in general have little interest in Scottish people if they won't vote for them....
#91 how old are you......?
93

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 17:43:21
Miss H:

"These plans will not affect moderate drinkers"

Ha! Ha! Ha!

That's what you think! And at the moment you may be correct. However, is this insanity makes it to the statute books expect to be paying at least £3-4 for a can or beer from a supermarket.

You really cannot see the danger of all this can you? Like I say, donate the money to Petrol Head's Beer Fund instead of campaigning in support of this legislation. That way, you will be happy, I will be happy and everyone else will be happy.
94

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 17:44:12
...expect to be paying at least £3-4 for a can or beer from a supermarket... ...in five years time.
95

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 17:45:33
#94:

The era I am referring to is around the late 70s/early 80s.
96

Maurice,

05/11/2009 17:51:32
91,92,93
Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head: Youve got it spot on there sir!
97

Kobi.,

05/11/2009 18:54:11
It ain't gonna happen. What the SNP propose is unlawful under EU law - there is case law to that effect; and Ireland, France, and Austria are about to get a kicking in the European Court on exactly the same policy of minimum pricing for health reasons on tobacco. Exactly the same law.

The SNP knows it is unlawful and will never survive a court challenge. What they (and those who support the proposals) are doing is posturing, pretending that they are trying to do something, when they know perfectly well they are not.
98

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 05/11/2009 19:00:33
#49
Sorry, I don't get the chance to go to Tesco very often bur certainly the malts that I like are all at 43% except Cragganmore which is usually 40%.

However, you raise an interesting point. Scotch Whisky cannot be called Scotch Whisky unless it is a minimum of 40% abv but most of the popular gins and vodkas are bottled at 37% abv. This, of course, means that the net cost (after duty and VAT on both drink and duty) of a cheap blended whisky represents far better drinking value for money than the white spirits!

Bear in mind, too, that the age on a whisky is the age of the youngest whisky in the mix - verified by HM C&E - while the age on, say, a cognac is the age of the oldest potential molecule in the bottle! That's why you can buy so-called "Napoleon" brandies, with quite absurd claims to age, for less than a couple of gallons of petrol.

It is thanks to our eagle-eyed and rather greedy Customs and Excise that our national drink has the greatest and most honest provenance of any spirit produced anywhere in the world.
99

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 05/11/2009 21:09:38
I only neet to scroll back as 96, Leadheid.

If you are paying that much in a supermarket in 5 years time then you will have to blame Westminster - unless there is an autonomous Scottish parliament.

Corner shops are cheaper anyway. In my area, at least.
100

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 05/11/2009 21:13:58
Just love the outrage from liver distenders who do not moan about the minimum pricing on tobacco products in the EU.

Or the duty paid on tobacco products in the EU. Or the cost of tobacco products in the UK.
101

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 05/11/2009 21:18:28
I want a level playing field between smokers and drinkers. Alcohol free pubs. Drinking in designated outside areas only.

Shelters for drinkers must be 50% open to all weathers.
102

fife runner,

05/11/2009 21:53:07
#103 if people are daft enough to smoke they are daft enough to be outside.

 

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.