Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Glasgow Boards/Forums _ Glasgow News Blog _ Scotland Gets 50p-per-unit Alcohol Price

Posted by: GG 13th May 2012, 10:06pm

SNP Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon will tomorrow announce that Scotland is to adopt a 50p-per-unit minimum alcohol price. The measure is intended to tackle problem drinking by increasing the cost of cheap vodka, lager and cider. The 50p figure is higher than the original 45p proposed by ministers two years ago, and is rumoured to have caused a split within the Scottish cabinet.

The minimum pricing policy will be implemented from next year, making the cheapest bottle of wine 4.69, while a four-pack of lager would cost at least 3.52, and a two-litre bottle of strong cider 6.

While the SNP government says that the pricing policy will save the NHS money and encourage people to live better lives, opposition groups argue that the bill will penalise modest drinkers, enrich supermarkets by creating higher profit margins, and could break EU competition law.

Minimum pricing has been promoted by health campaigners, while the SNP government claims that alcohol abuse is a "brake on Scotland's social and economic growth".

Labour health spokeswoman Jackie Baillie said:

QUOTE
"At a time when public finances are being squeezed, it makes no sense to hand over 100million to supermarket shareholders. We need to invest in alcohol education and treatment."

The Wine and Spirit Trade Association claim that the policy will punish even modest consumers.

Will minimum unit pricing policy help solve some of Glasgow's entrenched social and other drink-related problems? Please post your opinion...


GG.

Posted by: Jupiter 13th May 2012, 10:15pm

Now that this is about to become a reality I cannot see the Licensed Trade and the big supermarkets just accepting this and I do expect to see legal issues being raised.No doubt the govt has done its homework and been advised this is legal but Im sure it will end up in the courts.
Supermarkets are bound to make more per bottle but will sales plummet?
Is this the beginning of cross border trips to north England towns to stock up?
Does any of our posters have knowledge of this sort of thing in other countries?
I do know that Norway has punitive taxes on alcohol.
rolleyes.gif

Posted by: pumps100 13th May 2012, 11:03pm

I'm a convert to minimum alcohol pricing (MAP). Many countries throughout the world implement forms of MAP - for example in Canada many of the provinces have their own regulations.

It has been proven that the relative price of alcohol has a direct correlation to the amount of alcohol consumed. I looked at the practical side of this in the 'three for a tenner' thread below. I think it was post no. 68 - this was based on a notional price of 45p per unit (this is where I still think we will end up). There will be little effect if any other that to rid ourselves of the 3 litres of White Star/supermarket ciders for 1.89 - and supermarket own label spirits.

http://discuss.glasgowguide.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=22193&st=60

On the subject of Cider - and I've been doing some research - do you know that 'tax breaks' introduced in 2000 for the UK cider industry means that cider including the high strength 'white' variety can be sold cheaper than fizzy water. A supermarket can make the same gross margin on two bottles of 1.89 'cider' than by selling a bottle of whisky at 12! I always wondered by these allegedly reputable supermarkets sold these alky drinks - it's all about PROFIT!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/apr/17/cider-industry-protected-expense-alcoholics

And as for the common misconception about the price of alcohol when compared to former times studies have shown that alcohol in the UK in 2012 is significantly less costly than it was for example in 1980. This also covered in one of the later posts in 'three for a tenner'.

Regarding minimum alcohol pricing, I always say to people to do the sums before rejecting - I was once a skeptic but please forget knee jerk reactions -it really does make sense, honestly.

Regards

Ian

Posted by: norrie123 13th May 2012, 11:48pm

In my opinion this wont stop the hardened drinker but may affect the social drinker
me? I will buy what I like and stuff the SNP
I dont drink cheap vodka or cider but no doubt what I drink will rise in price
I can see the sense in raising taxes for the good of the nation but surely this price increase will only benefit the supermarkets or am I missing something

I cant see cross border trips to get cheaper drink but if there is, get me some Malt Whisky biggrin.gif

Bye for now, norrie

Posted by: Jazzsaxman 13th May 2012, 11:48pm

Will this put a stop to a big problem or simply move the burden on to the tax payer elsewhere, as in benefits. I think big brother should stop telling everyone what to do. It is the little termites in the government departments eating away at our freedom and liberties. The countries that tried to find a solution to the people problem ended up with Stalags and Concentration Camps. Is this what we are heading for. They need to deal with trouble makers and stop punishing the decent folk in this country. Of course this is just the easy way out.

Posted by: Guest 13th May 2012, 11:59pm

geezwan

I think that alcohol has been too cheap for a long time. I'm miffed that most beverages will double in price but bottles of wine etc should be seen as an extravagance. Not an everyday thing.

I think it's ridiculous that alcohol has become such a plague on our society and our NHS, I'll be interested to see if this makes any difference to the percentage or drunk and disorderly callouts or A&E etc.

I have a funny feeling it will make sweet f.a of a difference.

Posted by: UPYKLT 14th May 2012, 12:10am

Most of the people who are drinking the cheap crap, stole the money to get it in first place, so it isn't going to make the slightest difference to them. It would have been better to provide better education on drinking starting in the schools!

Posted by: Weeman 14th May 2012, 01:01am

Help ma boab! Kin ah no' get any peace in ma ain country? I wish all these do-gooders would just leave us alcoholics alone!

I vote for zero % -per-unit alcohol price, that'll sort the greedy supermarkets and government out I'm sure. Why can't us 'alkies' get a decent deal like buy one and get two free? I'd vote for that in a minute!

Scotland the Brave? More like 'Scotland, one of the most politically correct wee countries in the world'.

Fortunately, I'm old and I'll be dead soon - hopefully of alcohol poisoning! (if I can afford it) thumbup.gif

Posted by: droschke7 14th May 2012, 01:02am

My Local Off Sales charge 4:50 for 4 cans of Tennants and 5 for a bottle of wine what exactly is the 50p unit limit supposed to do? Do these people even go to an off sales?

Posted by: droschke7 14th May 2012, 01:08am

QUOTE (pumps100 @ 14th May 2012, 12:01am) *
I'm a convert to minimum alcohol pricing (MAP). Many countries throughout the world implement forms of MAP - for example in Canada many of the provinces have their own regulations.

It has been proven that the relative price of alcohol has a direct correlation to the amount of alcohol consumed. I looked at the practical side of this in the 'three for a tenner' thread below. I think it was post no. 68 - this was based on a notional price of 45p per unit (this is where I still think we will end up). There will be little effect if any other that to rid ourselves of the 3 litres of White Star/supermarket ciders for 1.89 - and supermarket own label spirits. ...

Easy for you to say Ian But last time i looked Reading wasn't in Scotland,

Posted by: Guest 14th May 2012, 06:59am

I was born in Glasgow. Now at 56 years young live in Seattle Washington USA.

This is a crazy law. If I want to drink . . . I will drink . . . the increased cost will come from somewhere else . . . unfortunately, if I was younger the wains would have less to eat.

Posted by: pumps100 14th May 2012, 07:25am

Here's some sums from what was said in post 68 in the 'three for a tenner' thread. Most people have not clicked the link hence many of the responses.

Note these figures are based on 45p per alcohol unit (I still believe this is where we will end up):-

QUOTE
4 cans of 440ml 5% beer. Units: 8.8 – MP cost 3.96 – Actual cost 4 so no change/effect
1 bottle wine 750ml 13%. Units: 9.75 – MP cost 4.39 – Actual cost c. 4.49 so no change/effect
1 bottle Bells 750ml 40%. . Units: 30 – MP cost 13.50 – Actual about the same so no change/effect
4 cans of 440ml 5% beer. Units: 8.8 – MP cost 3.96 – Actual cost 4 so no change/effect

4 cans of 568ml 5.3% cider. Units: 12 – MP cost 5.40 – Actual Coop cost 4 so would change
1 bottle Tesco Vodka 700ml. Units: 28 – MP cost 12.65 – Actual cost 9.29 so would change
1 bottle (2L) Tesco 'value' cider. Units: 15.2 – MP cost 6.84 – Actual cost 1.69 so would change

With regard to the comment about where I live. If people can recall it was Scotland which was one of the first to introduce the ban in smoking in public places – many other jurisdictions followed on including England. Again following the groundwork done in Scotland, David Cameron has recently announced that his government also plans to introduce Minimum Alcohol Pricing (at 45p).

Regards

Ian

Posted by: GG 14th May 2012, 08:05am

In the Scotsman today:

QUOTE
SNP’s minimum pricing plans of 50p 'hands big stores 155m'

Controversial proposals for a sharp increase in plans to raise the minimum price for alcohol from 45p to 50p will hand supermarkets an extra 11 per cent multi-million pound boost in revenue from drink sales, the leader of CBI Scotland has warned.

Iain McMillan's intervention came as health secretary Nicola Sturgeon is today expected to confirm that the SNP government will set the price per unit of alcohol at 50p.

Opponents have previously claimed that the SNP's failed attempt to introduce a 45p per unit price two years ago would lead to a 140 million annual windfall for supermarkets. ...

Full story here:
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/politics/snp-s-minimum-pricing-plans-of-50p-hands-big-stores-155m-1-2292661

GG.

Posted by: marty45 14th May 2012, 08:18am

We did't have as many problems with young people getting alcohol before all these wee corner shops sold alcohol. They don't care who they sell it to as long as money is going into the tills. There are so many of them that they can't be regulated. At least in the big supermarkets staff know if they are caught they will get into bother. This government is only giving us more problems because more people will be drinking in the house, we don't have a social life any more, people can't afford it. They are not hitting the underage drinkers who will get alcohol any way. They are hitting the poor men and woman who work and like to go out at the weekend.So many pubs are closing down there will be nowhere to go so the problems will escalate. The licensing board should not be giving out more drinks licences but helping the pubs who already have one. Socialising will be a thing of the past shortly. Again it is the poor working saps who suffer.

Posted by: kenb 14th May 2012, 08:24am

it wouldnt bother me if it was 100 per unit , but why always do the right get cuffed by the wrong
kenb
tongue.gif

Posted by: john fegan 14th May 2012, 08:51am

I don't know if the minimum pricing will work but I do know it is a measure that must be tried. The only opposition to it is the opposition parties. Police, medical services and alcohol abuse organisations all agree that it must be tried. Other countries including England and Wales are trying a form of the same.

The Scottish Government have been consistent in saying it cannot be a stand alone policy and other measures must run parallel. That is correct.

A big play is made of the moderate drinker being hit hard, well as a moderate drinker I say the opposite. The very fact that I drink moderately means that any extra I pay will be ....well...moderate.

It is the heavy drinkers who will feel it in the pocket, it is the budding drinkers who will feel it in their pocket. These are the targets and if some inroads can be made here, especially within the younger element then it will have been successful. If not then other measures will be tried.

We live in a society where in some parts of this city people are afraid to leave their homes for fear of the groups of mostly young people who gather and drink, they are afraid of alcohol induced attack. So to sit on our hands and do nothing is not on, and anyone who advocates this is contributing to the problem. mad.gif

Posted by: ashfield 14th May 2012, 08:56am

This will have no impact on the problem of alcohol abuse because nothing is being done to tackle the root cause. The effect will be exactly the same as the previous, ludicrous law introduced by this government, we are denied deals being in the same stores in the rest of Britain (although we can get them by ordering on line) and I can't go shopping before 10am if I am buying any alcohol. Totally and utterly pointless.

Posted by: Heather 14th May 2012, 09:04am

I don't think it will make any difference to Alcoholics as they will always find the money, it's their families who will suffer with less money for food and clothing.

Posted by: *BOB* 14th May 2012, 09:33am

This will only hit people like myself who like a whisky or two and as a pensioner put it out of my reach.
But the young ones will still manage to get the money to buy drink.
This will not stop it.

Posted by: pumps100 14th May 2012, 09:40am

Jennifer Trueland wrote a detailed article in the Caledonian Mercury in January this year concerning Minimum Alcohol Pricing as part of an overall alcohol strategy.

It is really worth reading the whole article. Professor Timothy Stockwell of the University of Victoria in British Columbia at the Centre of addiction studies has advised the governments in both Scotland and England.

But here is Jennifer Trueland on why the alcohol industry does not want minimum pricing:-

QUOTE
This is why the alcohol industry – much of it at any rate – is against minimum pricing. What they don’t want is a clear governmental message that their product can be harmful – and who can blame them, as that’s how they make their money? And they have a good point in many cases – minimum pricing would have no actual effect on top-of-the-range malts, for example, because they already cost more per unit than even the wildest dreams of the pricing advocates. But the message that sends out – that alcohol can cause harm – could cause sales to take a hit.

What’s more, if Scotland pushes ahead with this, then she certainly won’t be alone. Other parts of the UK are already signalling pretty strongly that they are likely to follow suit, such as Northern Ireland (a fellow nation with an alcohol problem). Look at what happened with the ban on smoking in public places. Once a couple of jurisdictions introduced it, then much of the rest of the world followed like a set of dominoes.

Alcohol is different to smoking, of course – drinking in moderation can even confer health benefits, unlike the evil weed. So it’s understandable that the alcohol industry does not want to be (low) tarred with the same brush.

Link to full article which is well worth reading:

http://caledonianmercury.com/2012/01/10/could-canada-help-scotland-on-minimum-pricing-for-alcohol/0027064

Regards

Ian

Posted by: mlconnelly 14th May 2012, 10:01am

I don't think it will make much difference. Like everything else, if they really want something they'll find the money somewhere. And as Heather says, sadly its usually the families of the drinker who suffer most. I think education from a young age is the way to go and introducing small amounts of alcohol, say some watered down wine with a meals, as they have done in Europe for centuries is 1 wat to go. We are told from a young age that we can't drink alcohol until we're 18, then once we reach 18 and think we know it all, its too late to try to teach moderation. Mary

Posted by: john.mcn 14th May 2012, 10:21am

Brilliant news. Anyone who picks booze over food for their weans should not only have them removed but be put in jail. Higher prices in the 'offies' and supermarkets will help the pubs, people stopped going due to low supermarket prices, now those will be higher they might as well go to the pub.

(off topic)
Anyway is it just me or does anyone else think that a Health spokesperson (shadow or otherwise) should actually look like a healthy person, not someone who loses the fight with a plate of pies every night.Maybe it's a Glasgow thing because some Glasgow council gym employees look like they've never used the facilities themselves.

Posted by: annemarie_m 14th May 2012, 10:30am

I hope they feel this will help out very young kids from drinking. A lot of kids have drink within the house.

Everyone in front of you at the supermarket buys alcohol. A wee bread and anything else? but beer, wine and any alcohol on offer from the supermarket.

A lot of people are drinking at home, its cheaper than going out to a pub. Maybe not drinking at home but going out maybe once a month would be good for them. No drinking with children around.

Posted by: Plain Jane 14th May 2012, 12:15pm

Good for Nichola Sturgeon - never mind all the selfish moaners. What about all the hardship and unhappiness drink can cause - all the kids downing copious amounts of alcohol and maybe in later years wasting their lives and the lives of others and having liver damaged into the bargain - this is what it's all about - not whether all our rights are being interfered with or whether we can't afford the extra - drink a bit less and face up to life as it is, not through a happy haze! .... and by the way, I too enjoy a wee glass of wine excl.gif

Posted by: aussiejimmy 14th May 2012, 12:41pm

Over here in Aussie (Victoria) pubs and Clubs are strictly monitored re serving alcohol to patrons who have had too much. This appears to have had some affect as the law is heavily enforced and proprieters dont want to lose their businesses. Aussies drink as much if not more than Glasgow patrons. Sounds like the corner shops need strict scrutiny as this is where our kids start drinking, the vicious circle. If the corner shops are not regulated then the problem persists and Joe Blow foots the bill for the cleanup which can last for years a lot of mazoola. Dont get me wrong I drink and learned to do so in my home town Glasgow but age gives sensability and moderation keeps me reasonably sharp.

Posted by: Scotsman 14th May 2012, 12:48pm

Has anyone worked out if this new law will effect the price of a bottle of Buckie? Thats the drink of choice round here for the kids out on the randan.... so unless that has its price hiked sky-high then theres not going to be much difference here in the East End!!

Posted by: Jupiter 14th May 2012, 12:51pm

The Licensing Scotland Act makes it an offence to be in,enter or attempt to enter licensed premises whilst under the influence but whether it is enforced is a different matter.I dont frequent pubs but when I did it was a rare sight indeed to see Police officers come in and I only think they do so when they are summoned.The new law as far as Im concerned is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut scenario.
Scotsman how much was Buckie the last time you bought it?
rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Scotsman 14th May 2012, 12:59pm

Hauf a shillin!! smile.gif

Posted by: pumps100 14th May 2012, 02:50pm

QUOTE (Scotsman @ 14th May 2012, 01:46pm) *
Has anyone worked out if this new law will effect the price of a bottle of Buckie? Thats the drink of choice round here for the kids out on the randan.... so unless that has its price hiked sky-high then theres not going to be much difference here in the East End!!

Unfortunately, the ASBO's drink of choice in Scotland, Buckfast would not be affected by minimum alcohol pricing even at 50p per unit. The alcohol content is 15% so a 75 cl bottle would have 11.25 units of alcohol. At 50p a unit it would cost 5.62 under minimum pricing. As I believe it already sells for about 6-7 minimum pricing would have no effect.

Down in England we are blighted by cider - particularly the white variety (Frosty Jacks, White Star). The market leader was White Lightening but Heineken dumped it as they did not want to be associated with it.

White Cider has been compared to heroin for alcoholics. Alcohol Concern carried out a study of white cider and street drinkers - you need a strong constitution to read the report - it is simply shocking. Supermarkets should be ashamed of themselves for selling such stuff.

http://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/publications/policy-reports/white-cider-street-drinkers

Regards

Ian

Posted by: pumps100 14th May 2012, 03:28pm

QUOTE (droschke7 @ 14th May 2012, 02:00am) *
My Local Off Sales charge 4:50 for 4 cans of Tennants and 5 for a bottle of wine what exactly is the 50p unit limit supposed to do? Do these people even go to an off sales?

The above is a good example. Under minimum alcohol pricing even at 50p a unit there would be absolutely no effect on this carry-out. The prices would be exactly the same.

4 cans of Tennents assuming 440ml cans and 4% alcohol. This is a total of 7.04 units of alcohol. 7.04 X 50p = 3.52. You are already paying 4.50 so no change or effect.

1 bottle of wine 75 cl and assuming 13% alcohol. This is 9.75 units @50p = 4.87. You are already paying 5 so no change or effect.

It is not until you do the sums you see that minimum alcohol pricing makes sense as it targets cheap ciders, superlagers, & unbranded spirits.

For Norrie, Bob and others who have commented it will not effect your wee drams of whisky at home, or the cost of drink in the pub. Unless, of course some of you are partial to the likes of Frosty Jack's white cider - currently 3.15 will get you a 3 litre bottle containing 22.5 units of alcohol - almost a man's weekly recommended amount of units in one handy bottle. But I very seriously doubt whether anyone on this Board would be doing that!

Regards

Ian

Posted by: enrique 14th May 2012, 04:45pm

angry.gif here we go again , another lame excuse for bumping up the prices , away back in the 20s and 30s when we had real poverty , those who were desperate for a drink managed to get one no matter what , its still the same in this day and age , those who are desperate will do what they can for a booze up , so look out for a big rise in muggings, shop theft, and burglaries so that means to cover this we will have price rises to cover the losses and insurance hikes for the same reason, but our politicians will not be affected they will just bang it onto the old expense sheet as usual and will anything be done , you have guessed it NOWT.

Posted by: Scotsman 14th May 2012, 05:13pm

QUOTE (pumps100 @ 14th May 2012, 02:48pm) *
Unfortunately, the ASBO's drink of choice in Scotland, Buckfast would not be affected by minimum alcohol pricing even at 50p per unit. The alcohol content is 15% so a 75 cl bottle would have 11.25 units of alcohol. At 50p a unit it would cost 5.62 under minimum pricing. As I believe it already sells for about 6-7 minimum pricing would have no effect.

Thanks pumps100.... your arithmetic is better than mine!!

So I dont get it now because if its not going tackle the real problem drinkers in our area then what is the point of it really. I agreee with enrique. The poor and the ones who are desperate are always going to find some way of getting what they think they need. Most of them sit in their house and drink but what harm are they doing except to themselves.... and probably because they think they have nothing else better to do. If your poor and you know it in this society then what else have you got going for you but to look forward to a good cheap drink.... at least that is something you can look forward to and whose to say that this is wrong??

Posted by: pumps100 14th May 2012, 05:35pm

QUOTE (Scotsman @ 14th May 2012, 06:11pm) *
... If your poor and you know it in this society then what else have you got going for you but to look forward to a good cheap drink.... at least that is something you can look forward to and whose to say that this is wrong??

You might be right - like white cider. The new 'methadone' for alcoholics! They can just sit at home drinking from those big plastic bottles causing no harm to anybody but themselves.

Here's some stuff which is from Alcohol Concern regarding cider - huge bottles with your weekly recommended dose in one convenient bottle and all for the cost of a pint.

QUOTE
It may be cheap, but white cider, the drink of choice for many homeless alcoholics, commands big profits.

A new report by the charity Alcohol Concern suggests profit margins on white cider are significantly fatter than those on other alcoholic drinks, thanks in part to tax breaks designed to help traditional British cider makers.

Cans of brands such as White Ace, Carbon White and White Star sell for as little as 59p. "It's because it's so cheap and it has a very quick effect on you," said Gordon Cowper, 52, a recovering alcoholic who now works for the homelessness charity Thames Reach in London.

"Most drinks are quite hard to drink, like whisky and stuff like that. With cider, you put a little bit of lemonade in it with the first one and then you can start knocking it back."

Many said they believed the drink produced far more stomach problems than other forms of alcohol. Several described a burning sensation as they drank the cider.

Jeremy Swain, chief executive of Thames Reach, said: "You see techniques like when they [white cider drinkers] drink out of a can, they'll pierce a hole in the end to release the gas and down it very quickly as the lack of bubbles means a quicker hit to the brain. It bears a likeness to that of a heroin addict who will inject into the groin because it produces the fastest effect."

Full article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/apr/17/cider-industry-protected-expense-alcoholics

regards

Ian

Posted by: GG 14th May 2012, 06:14pm

Minimum alcohol pricing was widely covered in the English press today, partly because David Cameron is looking at it for the rest of Britain (the Tories and Lib Dems support the SNP policy in Scotland), and, if you believe the Daily Mail, because the English expect marauding hordes of Jocks to storm over the border in search of cheap cider!

QUOTE
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/critics-hit-out-at-scottish-governments-minimum-alcohol-pricing-plan-7746096.html: Sam Bowman, head of research at economic think tank the Adam Smith Institute, was scathing of the charge, branding it "a miserable, Victorian-era measure that explicitly targets the poor and the frugal, leaving the more expensive drinks of the middle classes untouched".

He said: "It's regressive and paternalistic, treating people as if they're children to be nannied by the Government."

Britons "drink less than we did 10 years ago, less than we did 100 years ago and far less than we did in the 19th century".

Mr Bowman said: "Hysteria about drinking alcohol is a red herring invented by the health lobby. Health fascism is back with a vengeance and minimum alcohol pricing is just another brick in the wall."

QUOTE
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/14/minimum-alcohol-price-scotland-50p?newsfeed=true: While the Scottish pub trade and some brewers who specialise in premium brands support minimum pricing, the measure is opposed by the large retailers and the spirits industry. The Scotch Whisky Association again warned that minimum pricing was likely to be illegal, breaching European and global rules on free trade and competition. The SWA said it would push the cost of one litre bottle of Scotch up by 22% to 20, and a standard bottle up by 11% to 14.

Gavin Hewitt, the SWA's chief executive, said: "The Scotch whisky industry remains opposed to the principle of minimum unit pricing. It will be ineffective in tackling alcohol misuse. It has consistently been ruled to be illegal in Europe. It will damage the industry."

QUOTE
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2144304/Will-minimum-alcohol-pricing-start-tartan-invasion-England-search-cheap-booze.html: This minimum price meddling by politicians is futile. Northern Europeans are prone to binge-drinking in a way that southern Europeans are not. Ask the Scandinavians! Alcohol is massively expensive there, yet alcoholism remains a serious problem. It's part of a culture that also - as a useful sideline - gives us gloomy but engrossing detective series, such as The Killing, Wallender and The Bridge. If minimum pricing of alcohol can help Scotland create a better contribution to the detective TV series genre than Taggart, all well and good, but I doubt it'll have any other effect than to make life more difficult for the poor, give a boost to smuggling and lead to a drunken invasion of England which will do the reputation of Scots and Scotland no good at all.

GG.

Posted by: droschke7 14th May 2012, 06:43pm

just been watching the news, apparently the price increase is not a tax and wont be going to the Government it will be going to the retailers. So the SNP are taking a leaf out of the Conservatives Book and helping the Rich Drinks Companies increase their profits and shafting the poor, disabled and pensioners who are on a fixed income and can hardly afford alcohol as it is. Just reported on reporting Scotland, 2 liters of Cider, now 1.89 to be 5.00. Vodka now 14.63 for a liter to be 18.75
Wine 2.98 a bottle to be 4.50 a Bottle. Buckfast no change and reporting Scotland said No Change for Gin or Whisky. Three guesses what they drink in Hollyrood?. I do hope that when the SNP realise that the amount of muggings rises drastically that it's their fault as the "alcokids" will be out there getting money for their alcohol needs. WTG SNP shafted the poor again caused a high probability iof an increase in crime and now just as bad as the Conservatives.

Posted by: pumps100 14th May 2012, 06:59pm

QUOTE (droschke7 @ 14th May 2012, 07:41pm) *
... no change and reporting Scotland said No Change for Gin or Whisky. Three guesses what they drink in Hollyrood?. .

I watched Reporting Scotland as well. It was no change for branded spirits such as Gordon's gin and Famous Grouse whisky. And no change for the price of drink in the pubs as drinks in a pub exceed the 50p a unit cost.

Supermarket own label spirits such as Tesco Value Vodka at 9.29 will disappear from the shelves.

With regard to the 2.98 wine ex Asda, currently the duty is 1.90 on a bottle of wine (under 15% ABV) and you pay 20% VAT on the selling price. So, in this example there is 48p left to cover the cost of the wine, the bottle, shipping, profit - it makes you wonder what sort of wine it is!

Regards

Ian

Posted by: Jupiter 14th May 2012, 07:33pm

Some commentators have put forward the view that due to the vast number of unpopular policies implemented by the Coalition that one term is all it will run and I think there is a lot of credence in this.Re the SNP Ive got a feeling that this minimum unit price may well do for them because it appears that the people who are going to be hit are responsible drinkers ,probably voters who will not forget.My personal view is that the SNP have done well for Scotland and will continue to do so but I think this policy will backfire.
rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Dylan 14th May 2012, 07:43pm

It will not affect me.

It will not affect any of my friends.

I knew of a wee woman who told me she had saved up for a wee quarter bottle of Supermarket, own brand whisky as a treat for her husband who had been workng hard.

It will affect her .!!

Posted by: Jupiter 14th May 2012, 07:53pm

Dylan this may well be the type of lady who ,when she next votes,will think that the SNP with this policy is the cause of her hubby not getting his treat when he finished work.

Posted by: nan mcdonald 14th May 2012, 07:57pm

QUOTE (GG @ 13th May 2012, 10:04pm) *
SNP Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon will tomorrow announce that Scotland is to adopt a 50p-per-unit minimum alcohol price. The measure is intended to tackle problem drinking by increasing the cost of cheap vodka, lager and cider. The 50p figure is higher than the original 45p proposed by ministers two years ago, and is rumoured to have caused a split within the Scottish cabinet. ...

The only way I see to curb the Alcohol Drinking Is to take the sale of it away from the Supermarkets and corner shops and let the Publicans have the say who can buy.

Posted by: Jupiter 14th May 2012, 08:06pm

Nan you cant be serious.
rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Guest 14th May 2012, 08:20pm

I think this is fantastic news. Why should I, as a tax payer, plough a fortune into the treatment of those who choose to abuse alcohol? Or why should I be afraid to walk down a city centre street of an evening because of tanked-up neds who are out of their minds on cheap swally?

Posted by: pumps100 14th May 2012, 08:36pm

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 14th May 2012, 08:31pm) *
Some commentators have put forward the view that due to the vast number of unpopular policies implemented by the Coalition that one term is all it will run and I think there is a lot of credence in this.Re the SNP Ive got a feeling that this minimum unit price may well do for them because it appears that the people who are going to be hit are responsible drinkers ,probably voters who will not forget.My personal view is that the SNP have done well for Scotland and will continue to do so but I think this policy will backfire.
rolleyes.gif

Hi Jupiter,

I was surprised at the Scottish Government coming at this with the Minimum Alcohol Price (MAP) set at 50p. Most people believed that 45p per unit was in the right order. Cameron's government were looking at 40-45p.

Just a thought. They say it will not be implemented until the summer of 2013. By that time we will have most probably had excise duty in the budget plus retail price inflation. So the prices in 2013 will be higher anyway. They'll be getting everyone used to the idea of the 50p minimum alcohol price. Then nearer the time, I would put a small wager on the Scottish Government trying to play the good guy, especially at politically sensitive times - by announcing that 'they have listened to the people', and with all due fanfare state that the 50p minimum alcohol unit price is being decreased to 45p. Party on!

Regards

Ian

Posted by: Billbhein 14th May 2012, 08:53pm

Its better than doing nothing, alcohol abuse is much worse than it has ever been, especially with teenagers and young adults. It can distroy their lives before they have even started, anyone who has been in our city and town centres at closing time can see results of cheap booze. It doesn't have to be this way, so up the price, increase health education, and set good examples to the young..

Bill

Posted by: GG 14th May 2012, 08:55pm

In the interests of fairness, I should like to highlight the following paragraph from the Guardian article mentioned above:

QUOTE
[...] After resisting it for four years, Scottish Labour is also preparing to support the [Minimum Alcohol Price] policy if Alex Salmond's government presses on with plans for a 130m "health levy" on supermarkets to claw back the 125m increase in their revenues from a 50p minimum price. [...]

Just what the supermarket lobby will have to say about the combined 'health levy' and 'http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-17287289' denting their huge profits is easy to guess ... expect headlines of '10,000 Supermarket Job Losses' tomorrow! rolleyes.gif

--
Off topic: Note how the Guardian routinely refers to the democratically-elected government of Scotland as "Alex Salmond's government" ... do these journalists really think we are daft?

GG.

Posted by: john.mcn 14th May 2012, 09:02pm

Health levvy, lmao. How about working with the supermarkets to promote a healthy lifestyle and lower prices on fruit and veg.Taxing them more and more will just make them weary of opening stores and creating jobs. Profit is not a dirty word!

Posted by: frame 14th May 2012, 10:12pm

QUOTE (Guest @ 14th May 2012, 09:18pm) *
I think this is fantastic news. Why should I, as a tax payer, plough a fortune into the treatment of those who choose to abuse alcohol? Or why should I be afraid to walk down a city centre street of an evening because of tanked-up neds who are out of their minds on cheap swally?

Fair point. Although, I can't see either of those scenereos slowing down anytime soon.
It's a well known fact that no matter how tough things get, the street jerkoffs always find a way to fill the tank and then get nasty.
What's that tired old saying? I think it goes something like, "By hook or by crook".

As long as they don't bring in prohibition I think I can just about make it.
Here's looking at you kid.

Posted by: lenmar123 14th May 2012, 10:24pm

Well the old ladies who want a game of bridge or a chat with a bottle of wine are to be penalised No promotions for Joe Soap or anybody else -----and yet in the house of commons with its seven bars you get a glass of wine and the barman then asks you if you would like a TOP UP ---well theres a thing ive never had that in a club or pub And seven pubs at your work ---no wonder fights break out

Posted by: GG 14th May 2012, 10:52pm

QUOTE (GG @ 13th May 2012, 10:04pm) *
... Minimum pricing has been promoted by health campaigners, while the SNP government claims that alcohol abuse is a "brake on Scotland's social and economic growth". ...

Quoting myself ... what's the world coming to!?!

Anyway, has anyone been able to work out how those who purchase copious amounts of cheap vodka, lager or cider – i.e. the only ones whom the new pricing policy will affect, according to the pundits on the telly – are somehow curtailing the "economic growth" of Scotland?

GG.

Posted by: GG 14th May 2012, 11:05pm

I just checked ... and I think the minimum pricing policy is actually going to have a bigger impact than has been told in the media. Here's how:

Last week I bought 12 bottles of Miller lager for 7 from the local supermarket – don't worry, most are still in the box. Quick division shows that the price of each bottle worked out at 59p. When I looked on the bottle I found that each one has an alcohol unit value of 1.6; this means that, under the new minimum pricing, a bottle will not sell below 80p. Therefore, that 7 will need to rise to almost 10 to keep to the new pricing policy! sad.gif

GG.

Posted by: john.mcn 14th May 2012, 11:21pm

Thats what you get for drinking p**h beer laugh.gif cool.gif

Posted by: nan mcdonald 14th May 2012, 11:32pm

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 14th May 2012, 08:04pm) *
Nan you cant be serious.
rolleyes.gif

Many Moons ago when I was Young. I never saw Teenagers legless on the streets of Glasgow.

Probably because it was not so obtainable .

Posted by: wombat 14th May 2012, 11:41pm

yes.gif yie wurny lookin very hard,aw us teenagers used tae get scrumpy cider oot the backdoor of a certain pub in a used beer bottle furra tanner 1960s thumbup.gif

Posted by: droschke7 15th May 2012, 01:23am

QUOTE (GG @ 14th May 2012, 11:50pm) *
Quoting myself ... what's the world coming to!?!

Anyway, has anyone been able to work out how those who purchase copious amounts of cheap vodka, lager or cider – i.e. the only ones whom the new pricing policy will affect, according to the pundits on the telly – are somehow curtailing the "economic growth" of Scotland?

GG.

Quoting yourself GG? Have you been on the Sauce? LOL

Posted by: wombat 15th May 2012, 01:42am

thumbup.gif passin the buckie yes.gif

Posted by: pumps100 15th May 2012, 07:37am

QUOTE (GG @ 15th May 2012, 12:03am) *
I just checked ... and I think the minimum pricing policy is actually going to have a bigger impact than has been told in the media. Here's how:

Last week I bought 12 bottles of Miller lager for 7 from the local supermarket – don't worry, most are still in the box. Quick division shows that the price of each bottle worked out at 59p. When I looked on the bottle I found that each one has an alcohol unit value of 1.6; this means that, under the new minimum pricing, a bottle will not sell below 80p. Therefore, that 7 will need to rise to almost 10 to keep to the new pricing policy! sad.gif

GG.

Can you please tell us the name and address of the supermarket as this seems an astonishingly good deal. You're not buying any of this stuff ex back of a van from Calais are you?

I bought 12 cans of Heineken last week from Sainsbury for 8 and I thought I got a really good deal.

Each can 330 ml @ 5% ABV. The calculation to get units is quite simple - Quantity in ml X ABV /1000.

So in my case each can of the green nectar was 330 X 5 /1000 = 1.65 units. 12 cans in the box so 12 X 1,65 = 19.8 units, At 50p a unit the minimum price would be 9.90 but at 45p it would be 8.91.

I gave duff information recently about the cost of Frosty Jacks white cider - I saw it on offer for only 2.59 for 3 litres (I thought is was 3.15). Your 12 cans of Miller has a total of 19.2 units for your 7 - whereas you get a whopping 22.5 units of alcohol from Frosty Jack for only 2.59 - some deal, eh?

Anyway, dare I say it - its not very patriotic of you to be drinking Miller - surely Tennents would be more appropriate. And at 4% ABV you'd be fine at 50p a unit provided as long as you don't pay over the odds (3.52 for 4 cans of 440ml).

Regards

Ian

Posted by: GG 15th May 2012, 07:47am

Hi Ian,

Info about the deal is http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/miller-genuine-draft-12-x-330ml-down-from-10-7-morrisons-1206821 ... apparently it wasn't available outside Scotland!

There's a good article in the Herald today (I'll read later), but looks like it is about the knock-on effect of differential pricing strategies, which are pursued by companies to use price to send messages about their product to consumers. Basically, if cheap drink goes up in price, then 'better' brands will be forced "strategically" to raise their prices.

Stephen Doyle, a Glasgow academic, said:

QUOTE
"There will be a shift in price but it won't be reactive. It will have to be strategic. It's a dilemma because, on one hand, manufacturers have the opportunity to increase their market share with customers migrating upwards.

But, at the same time, these brands need to be clear about why they are better and their product is distinctive.

When prices go up at the bottom they also increase further up."

So, looks like prices will rise for alcohol right across the board.

Warning on hidden impact of new alcohol pricing law
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/political-news/warning-on-hidden-impact-of-new-alcohol-pricing-law.17547553

GG.

Posted by: bilbo.s 15th May 2012, 07:50am

So drinking Heineken is more patriotic than drinking Miller ???? Mind you, anything is preferable to Tennent's "lager". The only thing that Embra does better than Glesca is make beer.

Posted by: pumps100 15th May 2012, 09:04am

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 15th May 2012, 08:48am) *
So drinking Heineken is more patriotic than drinking Miller ???? Mind you, anything is preferable to Tennent's "lager". The only thing that Embra does better than Glesca is make beer.

When in Rome (or Glasgow).

But in your case it'll be probably Estrella or a pint of Ribero del Duero!

All the best

Ian

Posted by: pumps100 15th May 2012, 09:10am

QUOTE (GG @ 15th May 2012, 08:45am) *
Hi Ian,

Info about the deal is http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/miller-genuine-draft-12-x-330ml-down-from-10-7-morrisons-1206821 ... apparently it wasn't available outside Scotland!

You are to be commended for ferretting out such an exceptional deal and only available in Scotland. About as rare as hens teeth. Well done.

I think it is limited to only six cases per customer (115.2 units).

Best regards

Ian

Posted by: Dylan 15th May 2012, 10:09am

Buckfast is not affected .

Posted by: wee davy 15th May 2012, 11:01am

I've enjoyed playing catch up on this post.
Its struck me how all yooz mathematicians come oot the closet, when units of alcohol are being discussed! laugh.gif

Am no trusting any ai yer calculations lol

QUOTE
But I very seriously doubt whether anyone on this Board would be doing that!
http://discuss.glasgowguide.co.uk/index.php?s=&showtopic=24329&view=findpost&p=3576490

ah widnae bet oan that, wi some posts, pumps ohmy.gif

Posted by: Jim D 15th May 2012, 12:41pm

As already stated - the practice of placing a minimum price on a unit of alcohol has been outlawed by E.U. for 30 years! Apparently it stemmed from a circumstance in Holland.
Therefore, why is the Scottish Government wanting to break the law????

We have a similar situation with the forthcoming referendum. The british government say Scotland must gain permission to call a referendum and Salmond & Co have decided that they don't need to do that.

It is Scotland getting use as the political guinea pig again. Thatcher introduced the poll tax in Scotland to see how it would go before giving it to England.

McConnell, under his guise as Scottish minister (with a Labour U.K. government) did the same with the smoking ban.

Now, we have Salmond trying it with alcohol?????

Why now tackle drug abuse and addiction? That would benefit the Country!

Posted by: john.mcn 15th May 2012, 12:50pm

Gotta love that hotukdeals, saved me a fortune over the years, it's probably cost me a bit too, buying all that reduced stuff i didn't need but decided i wanted biggrin.gif

Minimum pricing is in itself not going to change Glesga metality towards booze, but it's a start. You wouldn't go drink several litres of coke in one sitting but 'we' do for booze, just to get laldy wae it. Dont get me wrong i like a drink myself but i long ago gave up getting blootered just because it was the end of the week, every week.
When my wife became a nurse it really opened her eyes to the damage caused by booze, it really does cost the country quite a bit. When the old firm played she said the hospital staff just braced themselves for expected rush, i guess much like shop staff in a half price sale wink.gif

I love the cafe culture abroad and would love that here but the weather is against us. Having a beer outside watching the world going by is great.

Posted by: pumps100 15th May 2012, 01:41pm

Well said John. I am always on the look-out for deals also - I try to list these in the 'three for a tenner' thread.

I'm pro-minimum alcohol pricing but I'd like to make it clear that I do like and enjoy a drink.

For the past 15 years or so my wife and I normally don't drink any alcohol on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday's. There are certain dispensations - if you are away on holiday; if its a Bank Holiday; if you've got visitors staying (be rude not to); or birthdays/anniversary's.

The weekend starts on Thursday night at 18.00 hrs and ends on Sunday night - usually with a bottle of red and a pizza watching the box.

I'm saying this so folk don't think I'm tee-total and a member of the temperance movement.

Regards

Ian

Posted by: droschke7 15th May 2012, 04:26pm

Someone told me there is a way to order alcohol on the internet and get other prices than those in Scotland as the alcohol is paid for in England. Will this be affected? Is it just me or are these Politicians going at things arse about face? The majority of people admitted to Hospital for "alcohol related problems" have fallen down drunk after a football match or at the weekend after coming out of one of the clubs or fighting whilst drunk. The problems in Glasgow are mainly caused by :

a ) Tthe Junkies who seem to have no problem getting their drugs of choice

b ) The Buckfast brigade (or Buckfast and drugs of choice) this will not be affected, or

c ) The Clubbers who think nothing of spending 200 - 300 a night going clubbing and falling over drunk. if they're spending that amount on booze they wil definately not notice the fact that 4 cans of Tennents is more expensive. This whole thing is and was a stupid propaganda stunt from the SNP and a boost to alcohol retailers who can now charge more for their product without it actually costing them anymore to produce. WTG SNP another fine mess you got us into

Posted by: droschke7 15th May 2012, 04:29pm

Put my last post on at 4:21pm (it's 4:23pm now) why has it come up as 5:24pm?

Posted by: Scotsman 15th May 2012, 04:47pm

If the prices do go up for all drink that you buy from an offie then maybe one good thing is that people could well start going back to pubs again and there would be a better atmosphere with more money for establishments to spend on making the pub a better place. Most pubs are virtually empty now during the week and not that much better at the weekend.

Posted by: GG 15th May 2012, 06:43pm

QUOTE (Jim D @ 15th May 2012, 12:39pm) *
... Now, we have Salmond trying it with alcohol?????

Why now tackle drug abuse and addiction? That would benefit the Country!

Jim, a very good question!

Some people say that these kind of high-profile new policies are a deliberate attempt by the SNP to forge a more distinct Scotland, separate from England and the UK, especially in the media and the chattering classes ... if it goes international, even better. This new minimum alcohol price policy has been fairly widely reported in the UK and beyond, and I dare say Mr Salmond would love a fight with the EU over the pricing policy, as that would be sure to attract much attention throughout Europe.

GG.

Posted by: irrie 15th May 2012, 07:19pm

The street drinkers in this area mostly under age go about at the weekend in groups of 8 to 12. They will just chip in an extra few bob each and still get their bevvy. All i see is higher profits for the shops and the young team will still be drunk.

Posted by: GG 15th May 2012, 09:08pm

QUOTE (droschke7 @ 15th May 2012, 04:27pm) *
Put my last post on at 4:21pm (it's 4:23pm now) why has it come up as 5:24pm?

Hi droschke7,

how you see the time will depend on the setting in your control panel – the 'http://discuss.glasgowguide.co.uk/index.php?act=UserCP&CODE=04' linmk at the top of the page. You should adjust your time zone and daylight saving time until you get it (about) right, within a few minutes of your own local time.

GG.

Posted by: GG 15th May 2012, 09:13pm

QUOTE (irrie @ 15th May 2012, 07:17pm) *
The street drinkers in this area mostly under age go about at the weekend in groups of 8 to 12. They will just chip in an extra few bob each and still get their bevvy. All i see is higher profits for the shops and the young team will still be drunk.

I think you are right, irrie. Also, we have to remember that there are worse things that people could be taking than cheap drink. As JimD said above: it might be better to tackle the underlying issues, but I am sure that the SNP would claim that they are doing this also – they have always said that a range of measures are required to deal properly with the problems, and minimum pricing is just one aspect of their overall policy.

GG.

Posted by: DannyH 15th May 2012, 11:58pm

I think that an alternative method to attempt to reduce binge drinking is to go back to the law when I was a teenager. You had to be 21 before you could buy alchohol.

Some people will respond by saying that if you are old enough to go into the army at 18, you are old enough to drink alchohol. Well some of us we were called up for National Service at 18, but the law didn't change. Also it was uheard of that groups of girls that age or younger, went out binge drinking.

This has now become part of our culture. These girls are the mothers of the future, so unless something is done to reduce alchohol consumption among younger people, there is no hope for future generations.

I am not anti-alchohol; like many other people I enjoy a drink, but we are kidding ourselves on if we think that Governments should not interfere with alchohol consumption in this country.

One other thing that could be done is to stop the sale of booze in supermarkets and local shops and do what they do in Ontario, Canda. The stores that sell alchohol are run by the Government. They fix the prices, and there is no competition like we have here with supermarkets. No doubt some of you will have seen on the TV news, that Canadians from Ottowa, Ontario, cross over to Quebec to buy cheap booze. You couldn't afford the cost of petrol in this country to go that distance. I think the guy they interviewed saved about 30 dollars. What a distance to go for such a small saving.

No system is perfect, there will always be adults who are willing to buy booze for underage drinkers. What I would like to know is where are the parents of these underage drinkers? There was no chance of me or my pals going home with the smell of alchohol on our breath, before we were 21! We all lived in tenements in working class areas.

Posted by: droschke7 16th May 2012, 08:44am

QUOTE (GG @ 15th May 2012, 10:06pm) *
Hi droschke7,

how you see the time will depend on the setting in your control panel – the 'http://discuss.glasgowguide.co.uk/index.php?act=UserCP&CODE=04' linmk at the top of the page. You should adjust your time zone and daylight saving time until you get it (about) right, within a few minutes of your own local time.

GG.


I Live in Whiteinch Glasgow GG surely the website should have the same time?

Posted by: pumps100 16th May 2012, 08:52am

You make some good points Danny. I think the '21' age to buy alcohol was a voluntary thing with 18 always being the legally enforcible age. Where I live most of the supermarkets will challenge for ID if the people look 25 or younger.

I think the world is changing. There have been a few comments on this thread about somewhat rose tinted notions about how on the continent there is not a problem with alcohol being a abused particularly with binge drinking.

In France wine consumption has declined but the consumption of spirits and alcopops has seen a steady rise. France now has some of the most draconian laws and regulations in relation to the sale and promotion of alcohol. Advertising of alcohol is forbidden by law. The Heineken Cup in France is known as the H Cup as sponsorship by alcohol companies is banned. (in our country Carling should be banned for other reasons).

From the Guardian in 2009

QUOTE
It was once the nation of everything in moderation, where children learned to sip from parents' wine glasses at the dinner table and teenagers never got wasted in the street. But France is now battling such an epidemic of teenage binge-drinking that parliament this week approved new laws to curb alcohol sales to the young.

The national assembly voted to ban so-called "open bars" which offer unlimited drinks for a fixed entry price. It raised the minimum age at which a person can buy alcohol and cigarettes from 16 to 18 in line with most of Europe, and banned the sale of alcohol at service stations between 6pm and 8am - thought to be a prime source of drinks for young people.

The law, which goes before the senate next week, would also allow mayors to ban takeaway sales of alcohol in their areas between 8pm and 8am.

A newfound trend among French teenagers for overindulgence has seen a new Anglicism creep into the language: "le binge drinking". The number of minors under 15 hospitalised due to alcohol rose 50% between 2004 and 2007. A government report backing the new laws warned of "a worrying rise in massive alcohol use by young people".

France, once the world's biggest wine-producer, now has a teetotal president and alcohol consumption that has steadily declined from 17.7 litres a head a year in 1961 to less than 9.3 litres today.

But teenage drinking is rising. France was shocked last year when two 16-year-old girls in Picardy fell into an alcoholic coma during their first morning lesson at school. At 8.15am they had got off the school bus, gone into a bar to celebrate a friend's birthday before class, and were served around 20 cherry-flavoured vodka drinks in half-an-hour.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/13/france-teenage-drinkers-alcohol

Belgium - highest drink driving convictions per head of population in Europe.

USA - there has been a recent phenomena where teenagers, who just cannot get beer or whatever, have been having binge drinking sessions with alcohol based hand gels and cola.

Regards

Ian

Posted by: bilbo.s 16th May 2012, 09:16am

QUOTE (pumps100 @ 16th May 2012, 09:50am) *
You make some good points Danny. I think the '21' age to buy alcohol was a voluntary thing with 18 always being the legally enforcible age. Where I live most of the supermarkets will challenge for ID if the people look 25 or younger.

I think the world is changing. There have been a few comments on this thread about somewhat rose tinted notions about how on the continent there is not a problem with alcohol being a abused particularly with binge drinking.

In France wine consumption has declined but the consumption of spirits and alcopops has seen a steady rise. France now has some of the most draconian laws and regulations in relation to the sale and promotion of alcohol. Advertising of alcohol anywhere is forbidden by law.

From the Guardian in 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/13/france-teenage-drinkers-alcohol

Belgium - highest drink driving convictions per head of population in Europe.

USA - there has been a recent phenomena where teenagers, who just cannot get beer or whatever, have been having binge drinking sessions with alcohol based hand gels and cola.

Regards

Ian

Ian,

With the greatest respect, I think you are doing a David Cameron and attempting to deflect attention away from UK's problems by pointing out those of other countries.

Whilst young people no doubt indulge in alcohol abuse in many countries, there is no way that it is so rife and part of every day life, as in UK. In particular, Southern Europe has a whole different culture from the north. People consume alcohol in Spain but in 5 years I have very rarely seen a drunk, and only one of teenage years. Young people go out for a good time, without getting mindless and legless, or annoying , threatening or assaulting their neighbours. A can of beer can be bought for 18 pence and a litre of wine for 60p(there is no alcohol duty on wine).

Posted by: Scotsman 16th May 2012, 12:15pm

I think you are on to something there sir. When you look at how young people drink in this country then that is what we have to change because most of the time they simply want to go out and get blootered. What makes our young people need to do that?? And its a very good point you say about the cost in other countries being cheaper than here. And if the things that drive young people to drink are still there then they are still going to try to get blootered.... but if cheap drink is not there then may they try something instead??

Posted by: pumps100 16th May 2012, 12:19pm

No Bill I only mentioned the point about other countries because there had been previous comments made about other continental jurisdictions; suggesting that the problem of alcohol abuse was solely unique to Scotland and the rest of the UK. It is a bad situation - but other countries actually do something to reduce the scale of the problem.

I apologise for my apparent tetchiness. It is Wednesday.

Best regards

Ian

Posted by: The Bankie 16th May 2012, 12:22pm

Whit’s a this then?
Regards the minimum price of a unit of alchohol.
What everyone is missing is that it is not the cost of booze that is the problem. Whether we like it or not booze is like tobacco and heroin. IT IS A DRUG. And that means that its use can lead to addiction. As it is an addiction those who suffer from the affliction will do whatever is necessary to obtain it.

Has the graphic potrayal of the damage caused by tobacco and the banning of smoking in public places prevented people taking up smoking or reduced the number of smokers?
Has the fact that heroin and other class “A” drugs are illegal prevented their use?
Did prohibition in America stamp out alchohol?
Has banning handguns led to a reduction in gun crime?

Legislation does not cure addiction problems and as the gun laws and VCR bill have shown it does not reduce or prevent criminal or addicted behavior. Most frequently it leads to a poisonous mix of both as addicts commit crime in order to feed their addiction. According to muddled [i.e. Government] thinking, banning handguns has eradicated gun crime, making heroin illegal has cured drug addiction and overpricing tobacco and alchohol has already achieved responsible behavior.
HMMM, Possibly not!

Alchohol was originaly used in Europe to purify water and make it safe to drink. Vast quantities were consumed daily by the population. Around 1600, the ration given by those who employed workers and artisans was 8 pints of good (strong, 5% ABV +) ale and small (current normal strength beer) ale more or less on demand daily. The rich also drank quantites of wine and spirits. Shakespeare produced his best work whilst, more or less, permenantly pi - - drunk. So alchohol is not all bad and we come yet again to the addictive problem.

Let’s not beat about the bush. In order to deal with the problem we need to tackle the addiction. So instead of ploughing ludicrous ammounts of cash into unworkable solutions why dont we adjust existing legislation to address the problem?

I expect an amazing ammount of stick for my next comments but it’s no good saying that “somebody should propose this” if you are not prepared to be that somebody.
Anyone found commiting a crime under the influence of, or to obtain, drugs or alchohol should be subjct to the American “three strikes and you are out” rule inthe following form:
First offence = current penalty.
Second offence = Jail term.
Third offence = Jail term and no release untill end of sentance and then remanded in a secure establishment untill cerified as “clean” by a qualified addiction councillor.
I DO understand that an addict must want to be reformed or it will not happen so we are left with what happens on a fourth offence?
Short of saying that this person obviously is a sociopath and has no respect for, or wish to abide by the rules of, the society he/she is living in and should be removed from it. Then we need to keep repeating strike Three.
Yes I do recognise that this is a waste of time as one of the signs of a sociopath is the inability to learn from punishment. What would you propose instead, the death penalty, dumping on an uninhabited island, permenant incarceration?
I understand that there will be many out there who will be shocked by this but equally there will be many who agree with it. If you have, for example, lost a loved one to a drunk driver you may prefer something more drastic.

OK I have said my bit. So shoot me down, praise me, or counter propose but let’s open this up and discuss it.

The Bankie.

Posted by: enrique 16th May 2012, 02:12pm

biggrin.gif After having my shout against increase of alcohol, lets look for answers , and mine may suit the goverment , one of the ways of raising revenue was attack the good old motorist , put up speed cameras everywhere and make a fortune for the gov.now if we adapt this to the bevvy merchants who get bombed out of there skull , lets have a blitz on the pubs and clubs and like in the old days if you are incapable of controlling yourself because of too much drink then we cart you away to the jail where you stay overnight and in the morning get a hefty fine, after a few pick ups i am sure most drunks will get the message and curtail the drink culture they now indulge in, therefore making them healthier and respect the demons that alcohol can bring , and at they same time make some money that could be channelled into the NHS, hey presto i have solved it, no need for a big debate , just hit them where it hurts and thats the pocket , but the right pockets no the sensible drinkers who will be hit if this goes ahead

Posted by: pumps100 16th May 2012, 05:27pm

Some good points Enrique.

If you really think about it the State has always played a part in the 'control' of alcohol consumption through tax and and excise duty.

I was reading up on the Gin Craze of the mid 18th century. There is a lot of common ground. There was a succession of Gin Acts, 1736 being the most notable to try and curb people getting drunk all of the time - previously people normally drunk ale and when the spirit gin was introduced it was very cheap and there was a tremendous amount of social problems caused by it.

QUOTE
By 1743, the people of England were drinking 2.2 GALLONS of gin annually per head of population--a fair amount for individuals who were significantly smaller and less robust than we are today. As consumption levels increased, an organised campaign for more effective legislation began to emerge led by the Bishop of Sodor and Man, Thomas Wilson (who, in 1736, had complained, tellingly, that gin produced a 'drunken ungovernable set of people'). Prominent anti-gin campaigners included Henry Fielding (whose 1751 'Enquiry into the Late Increase in Robbers' blamed gin consumption for both increased crime and increased ill health among children), Josiah Tucker, Daniel Defoe (who had originally campaigned for the liberalisation of distilling, but later complained that drunken mothers were threatening to produce a 'fine spindle-shanked generation' of children), and - briefly - William Hogarth. Hogarth's famous engraving "Gin Lane" provides the most memorable image of the gin craze.

The Gin Craze began to peter out following the 1751 Gin Act. This Act lowered the annual licence fees, but encouraged 'respectable' gin selling by requiring licencees to trade from premises rented at at least 10 a year. It is also claimed, however, that gin consumption was reduced not as a result of legislation but because of the rising cost of grain. Landowners could afford to abandon the production of gin, and this fact coupled with population growth and a series of poor harvests resulted in lower wages and increased food prices. The Gin Craze was mostly dead by 1757, which is when the government attempted to ensure that it would stay that way by temporarily banning the manufacture of spirits from domestic grain.

* In the early years of the 18th Century, there were 7000 dram-shops in England, in a country whose population was only around 5 million.

* By 1740, there were 9000 shops selling cheap gin in London alone.

* Gin could be sold to people of ALL ages - women often bought some for their babies.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/45486-london-gin-craze.html

Point I'm trying to make that is that governments trying to control the consumption of alcohol is nothing new.

Regards

Ian

Posted by: GG 16th May 2012, 11:55pm

Yes Ian, just like American prohibition didn't solve the problem, but it certainly created a lot more new ones. I wonder if the manufacture and/or import of cheap vodka could take off to plug the demand that will still be there after the SNP policy is implemented in the middle of next year?

The other point which the article makes is that youth drinking is not new!

GG.

Posted by: DannyH 17th May 2012, 01:04am

QUOTE (pumps100 @ 16th May 2012, 09:50am) *
You make some good points Danny. I think the '21' age to buy alcohol was a voluntary thing with 18 always being the legally enforcible age. Where I live most of the supermarkets will challenge for ID if the people look 25 or younger.

I think the world is changing. There have been a few comments on this thread about somewhat rose tinted notions about how on the continent there is not a problem with alcohol being a abused particularly with binge drinking.

In France wine consumption has declined but the consumption of spirits and alcopops has seen a steady rise. France now has some of the most draconian laws and regulations in relation to the sale and promotion of alcohol. Advertising of alcohol is forbidden by law. The Heineken Cup in France is known as the H Cup as sponsorship by alcohol companies is banned. (in our country Carling should be banned for other reasons).

From the Guardian in 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/13/france-teenage-drinkers-alcohol

Belgium - highest drink driving convictions per head of population in Europe.

USA - there has been a recent phenomena where teenagers, who just cannot get beer or whatever, have been having binge drinking sessions with alcohol based hand gels and cola.

Regards

Ian


Posted by: DannyH 17th May 2012, 01:12am

Hello Ian,

No, No, No. It was not voluntary.

For my 21st birthday, I took the football team I played for to the Glasgow Empire (September 1952). During the interval I took them up to the bar and ordered drinks for them. My parents gave me the money, by the way. When I went to pay for the drinks,the bar maid said, "I am not taking the money from you, son. You are not 21"! She went on to say that she would accept the money from the "man" next to me. He happened to be about 6 feet tall (the goalie), so with a red face, I handed him the money.

Posted by: GG 17th May 2012, 07:23am

QUOTE (enrique @ 16th May 2012, 02:10pm) *
... and at they same time make some money that could be channelled into the NHS ...

Good point enrique, but first they have to get the money from supermarkets, and that will definitely not be easy considering the huge lobbying power that the industry has. Also, big companies that sell alcohol, but not cigarettes, will be exempt from the so-called 'health levy – that means businesses like M&S will not be included. Then, even if the money goes into government coffers, will it be directed specifically at improving the country's health and wellbeing?

SNP’s minimum pricing plans of 50p ‘hands big stores 155m’
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-s-minimum-pricing-plans-of-50p-hands-big-stores-155m-1-2292661

GG.

Posted by: droschke7 17th May 2012, 08:24am

I lived in Germany for 21 years (74-95) where they have cheap alcohol and had (at least at that time) 24/7 licensing laws. Untill the fall of tjhe Berlin Wall you never saw any alcohol fueled trouble because people could drink at their own pace and not have to binge drink or drink fast to get drunk. the only time you saw someone stagger drunk down the street they were invariably either a British Serviceman or British tourist. Laterly there was an initial problem with the East Germans that turned up but they soon got used to it. In Southern Germany (Bavaria etc) they even had Beer in the Coke machines in the Factories.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 17th May 2012, 08:39am

Droschke, I remember having beer with my breakfast rolls while working for Dornier where we built and serviced military aircraft at Oberphaffenhofen, Bayern, As long as you had something to eat on your bench, you could have a bottle of beer there too - and of course a crate of beer under your bench. In Bayern, beer comes under the catagory of food and nourishment and that's why it's allowed.
The German youth are now taking up binge drinking 'tho in recent years; wonder where they got that idea? ... but over here it's called Coma Drinking. Very sad ... especially when it's classed as kudos to have had their mates get it all on film on their "handy" phones as they're rushed away to ER in an ambulance.
Some of them don't get to see the film.
Apart from this latest Coma Drinkin' event, drinking has never been a great problem over here where, in general, it's still 24/7 opening.

Posted by: pumps100 17th May 2012, 12:52pm

QUOTE (GG @ 17th May 2012, 12:53am) *
I wonder if the manufacture and/or import of cheap vodka could take off to plug the demand that will still be there after the SNP policy is implemented in the middle of next year?

No I don't think so. At 50p a unit the cheapest 75 cl bottle of vodka, or any other spirit at 37.5% ABV, which is 28.125 units or 14.06. Currently I think a bottle of Smirnoff (red label) cost about 13 - so if you must have vodka you have a decision to make - do you buy an unbranded 'value' bottle or Smirnoff for the same money? I think I know what I would do.

Personally, I think the introduction of minimum alcohol pricing will kill off 'value' brands.

In the white spirits market you could see the former brands like Smirnoff red label, Glens, Gordons Gin becoming the new 'value' standard brands selling at the base minimum price (14 at 50p a unit). Brands such as Snow Goose, Smirnoff Blue, Tanquery, Bombay Sapphire selling as premium brands - they'll be dearer than 14 because of brand perception but more importantly because they have a higher alcohol content (40- 43% ABV).

Remember the above comments only apply to carry-outs (not a drink in a pub).

Regards

Ian

Posted by: Scotsman 17th May 2012, 07:11pm

The Bankie.... I read your post and it seemed good most of the way through but are you really saying that somebody who commits 4 crimes when they are drunk should be taken out of society??

What if it is just 4 shoplifiting crimes to get the bevvy in the first place??

Posted by: ashfield 17th May 2012, 08:37pm

QUOTE (pumps100 @ 17th May 2012, 01:50pm) *
No I don't think so. At 50p a unit the cheapest 75 cl bottle of vodka, or any other spirit at 37.5% ABV, which is 28.125 units or 14.06. Currently I think a bottle of Smirnoff (red label) cost about 13 - so if you must have vodka you have a decision to make - do you buy an unbranded 'value' bottle or Smirnoff for the same money? I think I know what I would do.

Personally, I think the introduction of minimum alcohol pricing will kill off 'value' brands.

In the white spirits market you could see the former brands like Smirnoff red label, Glens, Gordons Gin becoming the new 'value' standard brands selling at the base minimum price (14 at 50p a unit). Brands such as Snow Goose, Smirnoff Blue, Tanquery, Bombay Sapphire selling as premium brands - they'll be dearer than 14 because of brand perception but more importantly because they have a higher alcohol content (40- 43% ABV).

Remember the above comments only apply to carry-outs (not a drink in a pub).

Regards

Ian

Sorry to spoil yor sums Ian but spirits are sold in 70cl bottles and wines in 75cl (unless, like me, you possess a bottle of 15yo Glenfarclas from over thirty years ago when the bottle size changed). I can understand what you are saying but can't agree with your reckoning on how the change will affect sales.

If the policy works (it won't rolleyes.gif ) then overall sales should drop (as far as spirits and beer go they won't) and people should consume less (they won't). Sales of table wine will drop because most bottles sold are under 5, when it goes over this it will become a greater luxury. The drop in table wine sales will have no impact on any of the governments targets on health or crime.

Those who drink fortified wine, usually with strong cider, will continue to drink at the same rate but become a health and/or social problem sooner. The simple reason for this is they will spend less on food and consequently the sources of vitamin B1 (thiamine) and/or heating, rent etc.

Posted by: pumps100 17th May 2012, 10:11pm

QUOTE (ashfield @ 17th May 2012, 09:35pm) *
I can understand what you are saying but can't agree with your reckoning on how the change will affect sales.

Sorry if I've not been clearer. If a bottle of Tesco value vodka changed from the current c. 9.49 to 14 under minimum pricing (at 50p a unit), in my opinion, I think many people would opt for a branded product like Smirnoff or even Glens.

I would accept that there would be a few people who might actually prefer the value brands. But if they were priced at the same level as the branded products I think logically that there would be much fewer value brands available (e.g Tesco Value Vodka). Such value brands might not be available because there was no longer a market for them.

Apologies if I've caused you any confusion.

Regards

Ian

Posted by: ashfield 18th May 2012, 09:23am

QUOTE (pumps100 @ 17th May 2012, 11:09pm) *
Sorry if I've not been clearer.

Ian, quite the reverse, and it's me who should be apologising. I typed my reply in Word and cut and pasted the unedited version on here.

I still believe the proposed policy will not work for a variety of reasons, some of those are referred to in my previous post. If the pricing policy remains intact, I agree there will be some brands which might disappear initially. The drinks industry likes to give choice so, sooner or later, I think there will be a return to premium brands pitched at a price higher than the base 14 level. My belief is that there will be no reduction in alcohol consumption because of this policy, perhaps excepting in table wines. If anything bumping up the price of "value" spirits is liable to lead to an increase in sales of fortified wines and strong cider.

Perhaps the Government should spend some money on trying to work out why people feel the need to live their lives through the haze of an alcoholic stupor. Don't think it would take long to work out myself.

Posted by: Scotsman 18th May 2012, 11:16am

I think they already know why people prefer to use alcohol so much.... our own Jimmy Reid knew 40 years ago so these puppet politicians must have caught on by now.... ALIENATION!!

This daft plan by the SNP is just to try to trick people into thinking that politicians are actually doing something about it when they are not!!

Posted by: pumps100 18th May 2012, 01:36pm

QUOTE (Scotsman @ 18th May 2012, 12:14pm) *
I think they already know why people prefer to use alcohol so much.... our own Jimmy Reid knew 40 years ago so these puppet politicians must have caught on by now....

Was it not 'Religion is the opium of the people' and somebody substituted 'alcohol' for 'religion'?

Anyway, it is Friday and I'll be having a drink at exactly 18.00 hrs to dull my senses to the euro melt down. I'll try and limit it to 9 units.

Regards

Ian

Posted by: droschke7 18th May 2012, 03:53pm

Only 9 I'll need more than that to dull my senses LOL

Posted by: pumps100 19th May 2012, 11:38am

QUOTE (GG @ 15th May 2012, 12:03am) *
Last week I bought 12 bottles of Miller lager for 7 from the local supermarket – don't worry, most are still in the box. Quick division shows that the price of each bottle worked out at 59p. When I looked on the bottle I found that each one has an alcohol unit value of 1.6; this means that, under the new minimum pricing, a bottle will not sell below 80p. Therefore, that 7 will need to rise to almost 10 to keep to the new pricing policy! sad.gif
GG.

I know you were up all night searching for that astonishing deal ex Morrisons. I was up early this morning to bag some Kevin Bridges tickets at a local small venue - he is testing some gags. I had time to kill till before the Box Office opened so I went into Sainsburys.

I think I have your 12 bottles of Miller beat in terms of cost and alcohol units per .

Deal 1
12 cans of Heineken, 330ml, 5% ABV for 6 (I paid 8 last week!)
(12 X 330) X 5 /1000 = 19.8 units for my 6 (30.3p/unit)
Under Minimum Alcohol Pricing this would be 19.8 X 50p = 9.90

Deal 2
20 bottles of Stella, 284ml, 5% ABV for 10
(20 X 284) X 5 /1000 = 28.4 units for 10 (35.21p/unit)
Under Minimum Alcohol Pricing this would be 28.4 X 50p = 14.20

The Heineken might be on special promotion because they are sponsors of the Champions League and the final is on tonight.

Regards

Ian

Posted by: Dylan 19th May 2012, 11:55am

QUOTE (pumps100 @ 18th May 2012, 01:34pm) *
Was it not 'Religion is the opium of the people' and somebody substituted 'alcohol' for 'religion'?

Anyway, it is Friday and I'll be having a drink at exactly 18.00 hrs to dull my senses to the euro melt down. I'll try and limit it to 9 units.

Regards

Ian

"Religion is the opiate of the masses "

Karl Marx.

Yours in pedantary smile.gif

Posted by: Mathieson 19th May 2012, 12:00pm

QUOTE (Scotsman @ 18th May 2012, 12:14pm) *
This daft plan by the SNP is just to try to trick people into thinking that politicians are actually doing something about it when they are not!!

Is that not the official SNP policy?

Posted by: boots 20th May 2012, 05:58am

Having lived in Canada most of my adult life, I feel I'm being somewhat presumptious voting on this topic. I don't mean that will stop me but before making a decision, I need assistance in understanding some of the details. Assuming the reason for the price hike is to hopefully cut down on excess alcohol consumption and thus have healthier Scots. If so, then why this "minimum retail price" which affects only lower end products the method chosen? I too am at a loss as to why the supermarkets should increase their profits.. I must be missing something here because I can't understand why the government didn't just impose a small tax across the board, with the proceeds dedicated towards education on alcohol abuse, treatment for alcoholics and counselling for their families.

One more question; Are there no Food & Drug Regulations governing ingredients? ie: White Cider Brands.

Posted by: Jupiter 20th May 2012, 09:38am

The Scottish Conservatives back the policy which is expected to get final clearance at Holyrood next Thursday.They are however calling for the policy to be challenged to ensure it complies with EU law.
Not to thwart it but to ensure it is legal.
This made me wonder.I would definately have put money on the big supermarkets making a legal challenge to the policy as it does interfere with their free trade but I am beginning to take the view as the 50p minimum is not a duty or tax are the big supermarkets quite happy to go with the flow as it seems that in financial terms they will come out on top?
Perhaps the big supermarkets or some other party are challenging the policy,maybe some of our members can say.

Posted by: JAGZ1876 20th May 2012, 12:14pm

QUOTE (Mathieson @ 19th May 2012, 11:58am) *
Is that not the official SNP policy?

What are you like laugh.gif

Posted by: GG 20th May 2012, 07:42pm

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 20th May 2012, 09:36am) *
The Scottish Conservatives back the policy which is expected to get final clearance at Holyrood next Thursday.They are however calling for the policy to be challenged to ensure it complies with EU law.
Not to thwart it but to ensure it is legal.
This made me wonder.I would definately have put money on the big supermarkets making a legal challenge to the policy as it does interfere with their free trade but I am beginning to take the view as the 50p minimum is not a duty or tax are the big supermarkets quite happy to go with the flow as it seems that in financial terms they will come out on top?
Perhaps the big supermarkets or some other party are challenging the policy,maybe some of our members can say.

The Tory policy on the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill seems to be that they are hedging their bets: on the one hand they are supporting it but, on the other, their support has won the concession that the law will be revoked should it be shown later not to be working effectively. That way, Conservative politicians in Scotland will be able to say "told you so" regardless of the outcome!

The Tories are also looking for an outside agency – the European Commission – to step in and take all bets off the table by declaring the whole episode contrary to the EU's laws on free trade.

Respoding to the Tories apparent volte-face, the following said:

Deputy Scottish Tory leader Jackson Carlaw:
QUOTE
"It is vital that minimum pricing is given a robust MOT to ensure it does not break EU free trade rules. So to ensure that the EC expresses a view, Scottish Conservatives intend to meet and encourage concerned member states to mount a challenge so we can have clarification from Europe on the legality ... If it works then we will be delighted that we aided that success. If it fails then we have secured the mechanism by which it can be dropped."

SNP MSP Gil Paterson:
QUOTE
"You can't camouflage a wrecking process. I'm gobsmacked that that's his attitude. I thought that, although he had legitimate questions, he was interested in achieving a good outcome. I'm disappointed he's gone against what he was saying, and he's trying to wreck it."

A Scottish Government spokeswoman:
QUOTE
"Minimum pricing of alcohol does comply with European law, provided it is justified on the basis of public health and social grounds. We are confident that it is justified in Scotland."

GG.

Posted by: pumps100 20th May 2012, 07:53pm

The only thing I would say is 45p.

Regards

Ian

Posted by: GG 20th May 2012, 07:55pm

QUOTE (pumps100 @ 19th May 2012, 11:36am) *
Deal 1
12 cans of Heineken, 330ml, 5% ABV for 6 (I paid 8 last week!)
(12 X 330) X 5 /1000 = 19.8 units for my 6 (30.3p/unit)
Under Minimum Alcohol Pricing this would be 19.8 X 50p = 9.90

Looks good, Ian! I will look out for that – I like Heineken! Did you check the sell-by date? The Sunday Herald today advised people to stock up on cheap booze, they were actually talking about wine, but might also work for lager, at least to get us through those first few months? smile.gif

GG.

Posted by: pumps100 20th May 2012, 11:13pm

QUOTE (GG @ 20th May 2012, 08:53pm) *
Looks good, Ian! I will look out for that – I like Heineken! Did you check the sell-by date? The Sunday Herald today advised people to stock up on cheap booze, they were actually talking about wine, but might also work for lager, at least to get us through those first few months? smile.gif

GG.


April 2013 for the cans of Heineken. If anyone is stocking up I'd always go for cans as they are much more dependable for long term storage than bottles. Also try to store indoors or somewhere that avoids big temperature variations - not garages or sheds. I would avoid all bottles.

I would not stock up on wine as it will not be effected unless you are a fan of the 2.98 bottle of wine ex Asda with less that 40p's worth of vino in the bottle.

If you were a cocktail drinker it definitely would be a good idea to stock up on Tesco Value/Sainsbury's Basic vodka and gin. With Britvic tonic or full fat coke or pepsi few would know the difference versus the branded products.

Regards

Ian

Posted by: mlconnelly 21st May 2012, 09:42am

QUOTE
If you were a cocktail drinker it definitely would be a good idea to stock up on Tesco Value/Sainsbury's Basic vodka and gin. With Britvic tonic or full fat coke or pepsi few would know the difference versus the branded products.

I am 1 of the few who would know the difference Ian. Gin is my favourite drink with tonic and a slice of lime or cucumber and has been for many years. I've found over the years that own brands and cheaper quality gins have a harsher taste than branded varieties and after 2/3 drinks, I, more often than not, get a splitting headache which will last well into the next day. That doesn't happen with more expensive branded gins, unless I've over-indulged. Mary rolleyes.gif

Posted by: pumps100 21st May 2012, 11:49am

QUOTE (mlconnelly @ 21st May 2012, 10:40am) *
I am 1 of the few who would know the difference Ian. Gin is my favourite drink with tonic and a slice of lime or cucumber and has been for many years. I've found over the years that own brands and cheaper quality gins have a harsher taste than branded vatieties and after 2/3 drinks, I, more often than not, get a splitting headache which will last well into the next day. Thjat doesn't happen with more expensive branded gins, unless I've over-indulged. Mary rolleyes.gif

Mary,

Good point well made. I did say 'few' (people) would know the difference. My wife and I usually have a G & T most weekend nights at 6pm - but we never have a second. Usually we've got export strength duty free Tanquery or Bombay Sapphire. If I have unfortunately ran out I will buy any London Gin which is 40 % ABV; currently I have Waitrose London Gin which is 40 % ABV. I would never buy Gordon's or any of the other gins which are 37.5% ABV. I would also never pay a premium for brands such as Kendricks - just don't think its worth it.

I think the success of a good G & T depends of a few things - a decent measure (1/3rd gill for a man), plenty of good ice, slice of fresh lemon or lime, but perhaps the most important thing is the quality of the tonic used. We use Britvic 25 cl cans (full fat) pre-chilled in the fridge. How many G & T's have been ruined by poor quality flat tonic. I have tried many different types of canned tonic and Britvic is the winner by a long way. Occasionally, we will add a splash of Martini Rosso into the G & T for a wee change.

But for many cocktails I think the Tesco Value/Sainsbury's Basics spirits would be fine. We occasionally will have a Long Island Iced Tea as a party starter (which can make for an early bed!) and I would defy most folk to tell whether you'd used Bombay Sapphire/Smirnoff versus Tesco Value or Sainsbury's Basic.

Regards

Ian

Posted by: zascot 21st May 2012, 12:03pm

Tip for all you Gin drinkers. You can drink as much Gin as you want but always keep an oxo cube in your car and don`t mix gin with anything else. If you get stopped just suck the oxo and you will pass the breathyliser. Simple really --- What you are breathing out is pure oxo gin. biggrin.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: zascot 21st May 2012, 12:04pm

Just in case anyone didn`t get it don`t try it.

Posted by: mlconnelly 21st May 2012, 07:40pm

Took me a seccond Zascot . laugh.gif laugh.gif Mary

Posted by: droschke7 23rd May 2012, 09:01am

LOL Copied and posted on Facebook

Posted by: pumps100 23rd May 2012, 01:12pm

QUOTE (GG @ 17th May 2012, 07:21am) *
SNP’s minimum pricing plans of 50p ‘hands big stores 155m’
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-s-minimum-pricing-plans-of-50p-hands-big-stores-155m-1-2292661

I read an article some time ago by Straight Statistics which mentioned the matter of VAT which applies to the actual selling price of the particular item. In the case of Minimum Alcohol Pricing there will be increased amounts of VAT collected. Their actual sums were done at 45p per unit so the figures are somewhat light (assuming they proceed with the 50p a unit).

The interesting bit is in the second paragraph in the article. The extra over 10.4m collected via VAT turns out to be almost the same figure spent in Scotland in 2007-08 for preventative measures to discourage drug and alcohol abuse. At 50p a unit they'll probably earn more that they spend - providing the Scottish government can wangle a way to get the VAT diverted to them as opposed to central government.

From Straight Statistics 8.2.12
QUOTE
There’s no reason to doubt the general proposition that increasing prices, whether through taxes or by minimum price legislation, would cut consumption and reduce health damage. It would also, at 45p per unit, put 103 million per year into the hands of retailers, some of whom are held responsible for harmful drinking by their aggressive pricing policies, and take 10.4 m per year out of tax revenues because duty will decrease by more than VAT increases.

That 10.4 m is, by coincidence, exactly the same as was spent in Scotland in 2007-08 for preventative activities to discourage the abuse of both alcohol and drugs, according to Audit Scotland. The bulk of this money went on drug programmes. So the minimum pricing policy stands to lose considerably more tax revenue than was spent in total on the discouragement of excessive drinking by the Scottish Government as recently as 2007-08.

Full article:-

http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/squeezing-scottish-drinkers-until-pips-squeak

Regards

Ian

Posted by: zascot 23rd May 2012, 02:27pm

QUOTE (mlconnelly @ 21st May 2012, 08:38pm) *
Took me a seccond Zascot . laugh.gif laugh.gif Mary

QUOTE (droschke7 @ 23rd May 2012, 09:59am) *
LOL Copied and posted on Facebook

Glad you enjoyed it. Ah think i`ll away fir a wee oxo or two. thumbup.gif

Posted by: GG 23rd May 2012, 06:44pm

QUOTE
It would also, at 45p per unit, put 103 million per year into the hands of retailers, some of whom are held responsible for harmful drinking by their aggressive pricing policies, and take 10.4 m per year out of tax revenues because duty will decrease by more than VAT increases. ...

Interesting, Iain. So, if the figures are to be believed, public finances are to lose out but the supermarkets who fuelled the escalation of the problem are to benefit from a (revised) 130million increase in profits. What is to stop supermarkets turning their aggressive pricing strategies on other products which harm health when consumed in excess ... chocolate or pizzas? Supermarkets are in the midst of a price war anyway, and if they are given a boost to profits they will see that as an opportunity to gain more market share by any means necessary.

Iain Bell's commentary from the Sunday Herald makes interesting reading:

The right to lard (and fags and cheap booze)
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/the-right-to-lard-and-fags-and-cheap-booze.17626671

GG.

Posted by: pumps100 23rd May 2012, 09:33pm

My own view on the reported 130-150m additional profit is that it will not be so clear cut.

I believe these headline figures assume that the exact same types of drink products are still on sale and the retailer hugely benefits from massive windfall margins e.g. the current 2.59 BIG bottle of white cider which under minimum alcohol pricing would be 11.25 (22.5 units X 50p) and the retailer pockets the difference.

I'm not inclined to believe that there will be sufficient demand from the hardened drinkers to pay over 11 for something that previously cost the about the same as a pint in a pub (2.59). In reality, I think that these 'value' products will over a relatively short period drop out.

I read Iain Bell's column in the Sunday Herald. It would have been a much better article if it was reduced to a quarter of its length. He did say this, which I fully agree with, and I think will actually happen (at 45p a unit).

QUOTE
If Holyrood and Westminster can get together on the unit pricing of alcohol – namely, a single, cross-Border price – we should all take heart. Pricing works; lives will be saved.

Are you rationing your Miller? or stocking up?

Regards

Ian

Posted by: GG 23rd May 2012, 11:48pm

I'm not sure to what extent the rise in profits factors in the expected overall inflation of all alcohol prices to accommodate the rise at the bottom. I posted an earlier link, but basically it relates to the concept of differential pricing where marketers use the price point as an indicator of the quality of the offering. So, if Tesco vodka rises from 8 to 13, then the producers of bottles of vodka currently at 13 (e.g. Vladivar Classic vodka) will want to 'distance' their product from the Tesco value range by increasing the price. As the expert in the previous article said, this will be a strategic decision which will be factored in for the long term, not just a knee-jerk reaction.

Still got a few Miller left – very nice! – will shop for more soon. smile.gif

GG.

Posted by: GG 23rd May 2012, 11:54pm

... And while we're on the subject of alcohol marketing, why not ban that?


GG.

Posted by: pumps100 24th May 2012, 08:36am

QUOTE (GG @ 23rd May 2012, 11:52pm) *
... And while we're on the subject of alcohol marketing, why not ban that?

If you mean Alcohol advertising I totally agree. The sexing up of alcohol advertising makes it a too attractive proposition particularly for younger people. In France it is banned.

A guy wrote this letter in yesterday's Guardian. Forget 'think tanks' and all the industry that surrounds this issue here are some apparently meercat simple ideas for a policy:-

QUOTE
This talk of minimum unit price for alcohol will only put more money into the pockets of manufacturers. Might I suggest a sliding scale, seeing as pubs are losing out to supermarkets and are closing at an alarming rate.

1 Reduce the tax on draught beer (limited to 4.5%), any higher strength, tax to remain the same.
2 Poured drinks: tax to be the same.
3 Sealed drinks, ie. those sold in supermarkets or shops: increase the tax according to alcohol content.
4 Alcoholic drinks not to be sold as a loss leader.
5 Tins and plastic bottles (with soft drinks and high sugar): an added tax to pay for clearing litter.
Roy Gill
Ulverston, Cumbria

If you added 'high caffeine' into point 5 you could really start to generate some revenue (Red Bull, Relentless, and even Buckfast?). By the way Red Bull is one of the fastest rising 'brands' of roadside litter found in the UK - coke is currently the most littered soft drink - but Red Bull's growth on the littering scale is increasing at a phenomenal rate.

Regards

Ian

Posted by: cameronian21 24th May 2012, 01:47pm

i would like to know how the minimum price would have stopped amy winehouse,george best,sir nicholas fairbairn qc,charles kennedy mp,paul gascoigne,eric joyce form binge drinking.it could be a 100 a unit and they could still afford it.

Posted by: GG 25th May 2012, 07:46am

From the order of business at Holyrood yesterday:

QUOTE
S4M-02967 Nicola Sturgeon: Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill—That the Parliament agrees that the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

The Presiding Officer has selected the following amendment

S4M-02967.1 Jackie Baillie: Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill—As an amendment to motion S4M-02967 in the name of Nicola Sturgeon (Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill), insert at end “but, in so doing, strongly believes that the Scottish Government should bring forward proposals to eliminate the windfall to large retailers arising from the minimum unit price by means of the proposed public health levy or other targeted levy.”

Let's not forget that Ms Baillie's party defeated the 'Tesco Tax' last year:
QUOTE
Scottish government plans for a large retailer levy to help offset budget cuts have been rejected by MSPs.

Finance Secretary John Swinney said the move, dubbed the "Tesco Tax", would bring in an extra 30m, while his budget was being reduced by 1bn.

But Labour, the Lib Dems and Tories voted the plan down at parliament after branding it "anti-competitive".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12338217

GG.

Posted by: JAGZ1876 25th May 2012, 10:19am

QUOTE (cameronian21 @ 24th May 2012, 01:45pm) *
i would like to know how the minimum price would have stopped amy winehouse,george best,sir nicholas fairbairn qc,charles kennedy mp,paul gascoigne,eric joyce form binge drinking.it could be a 100 a unit and they could still afford it.

It's not the health of so called celebrities with more money than sense that the government is trying to help, they are trying to protect the young and weak willed in society.

Posted by: droschke7 25th May 2012, 11:34am

QUOTE
"The Presiding Officer has selected the following amendment

S4M-02967.1 Jackie Baillie: Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill—As an amendment to motion S4M-02967 in the name of Nicola Sturgeon (Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill), insert at end “but, in so doing, strongly believes that the Scottish Government should bring forward proposals to eliminate the windfall to large retailers arising from the minimum unit price by means of the proposed public health levy or other targeted levy.”

and the way to do that is for them to grab the money for themselves meaning that they'll make more than just the increase in VAT on this Bill they will get all the proceeds caused by this Bill. now there's a surprise........

Posted by: Fidget 11th Jun 2012, 08:05pm

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 14th May 2012, 12:30am) *
Now that this is about to become a reality I cannot see the Licensed Trade and the big supermarkets just accepting this and I do expect to see legal issues being raised.No doubt the govt has done its homework and been advised this is legal but Im sure it will end up in the courts.


Drinks companies are already taking legal advice on it. It's basically price fixing, which is illegal, so they've got a good case, although I think the Gov's stance will be that it's in the public interest, to get round that.

I'm against a min price. I don't think it'll matter a damn to the people it's actually aimed at because they'll just carry on regardless. Asides from that, this 50p min price is only the start. As soon as that comes in, it gives the Gov the green light to raise it or lower it at will.. and I can't see it being lowered. In fact, the Gov has already said that it wouldn't be raised in the first two years, so they're basically saying that the intention is to raise it.

Posted by: droschke7 11th Jun 2012, 08:16pm

wonder how much David Cameron pays for alcohol in his local pub where he managed to lose his daughter recently

Posted by: allypally49 9th Jul 2012, 01:25pm

I just wish people would stop compairing that some drinks are cheaper than a bottle of water, work it out the water price is too dear!

Posted by: allypally49 9th Jul 2012, 01:28pm

QUOTE (Fidget @ 11th Jun 2012, 09:20pm) *
Drinks companies are already taking legal advice on it. It's basically price fixing, which is illegal, so they've got a good case, although I think the Gov's stance will be that it's in the public interest, to get round that.

I'm against a min price. I don't think it'll matter a damn to the people it's actually aimed at because they'll just carry on regardless. Asides from that, this 50p min price is only the start. As soon as that comes in, it gives the Gov the green light to raise it or lower it at will.. and I can't see it being lowered. In fact, the Gov has already said that it wouldn't be raised in the first two years, so they're basically saying that the intention is to raise it.

Good point, just another Tax raisng idea it will turn out to be

Posted by: Doug1 12th Jul 2012, 03:03pm

Agreed, its got nothing to do with stopping people drinking its simply another way of raking in money on the pretext of it being a health matter....of course i am bit of a cynic eyebrow.gif

Posted by: GG 18th Jul 2012, 10:35pm

This issue has been quite quiet in the media for a while now, but signs that it is getting some more attention again.

QUOTE
Alcoholism 'costs Scottish intensive care units 9m a year to treat'

Alcoholism places more strain on intensive care units in Scotland than the rest of the UK, health officials have warned.

Around a quarter of patients treated in intensive care units in Scottish hospitals have alcohol problems according to the Scottish Intensive Care Audit Group.

In a report released on Wednesday, the group estimated that it cost the NHS in Scotland around 9m a year to treat alcohol disease. ...

Full story here:
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/111501-alcoholism-costs-scottish-intensive-care-units-9m-a-year-to-treat/

Also includes:
QUOTE
[...] Tackling alcohol problems has been a stated priority of the Scottish Government and legislation on the minimum pricing of units has already been passed. [...]

I wonder if it has occurred to the Scottish Government that they might want, instead, to tackle the underlying problems which are driving people to excessive drinking in increasingly higher numbers?

GG.

Posted by: Jupiter 19th Jul 2012, 01:39am

Whisky industry chiefs are set to mount legal challenge in European Courts over new pricing policy.
Brief story in the Sun today.

Posted by: Guest 31st Jul 2012, 12:34am

QUOTE (zascot @ 21st May 2012, 01:18pm) *
Tip for all you Gin drinkers. You can drink as much Gin as you want but always keep an oxo cube in your car and don`t mix gin with anything else. If you get stopped just suck the oxo and you will pass the breathyliser. Simple really --- What you are breathing out is pure oxo gin. biggrin.gif laugh.gif

If sucking Oxo cubes could stop a breathalyzer then they would sell for $$$$$ a shot. As they would then, due to the high Austrlian dollar, all be exported to here and fetch premium prices.

Posted by: Dun Stoshious 31st Jul 2012, 12:52am

Looking at the prices quoted her for entry level spirits and beer, it is little wonder that there is a problem with alcohol abuse. These prices must put a range of alcohol within the reach of school children and the unemployed. In Australia recently there was a crack down on "alco-pops" ie. cans of rum&coke etc. The prices were raised drastically to prevent school kids accessing fizzy drunks. What ever good effect it may have engendered is not very apparent as teenage drunks are becoming a problem to such an extent, especially in NSW. that state conferences are being called in an attempt to deal with it. Raising prices unfairly affects those who are not in the category of dysfunctional anti-social drunks. There is a relationship between price and availability but the problem seems to lie in the availability.

Posted by: pumps100 31st Jul 2012, 10:07am

Tesco Wine Sale - 25% off six bottles or more (excluding Scotland)

Sorry for late reporting of this deal which ends today. I bought a few on Friday but the wines I was after were mostly out of stock in-store. But you could get them online at www.tesco.com/wine

I ordered some online on Friday and they were delivered yesterday.

For example a nice white wine Inycon Sicilia Limited Edition Grillo 75cl - 19.14 for six bottles (under 3.20 a bottle).

Splashed out on six bottles of Tesco Finest Crozes Hermitage - 35.82 for six, so smidgin under 6 a bottle.

Under minimum alcohol pricing at 50p a unit you'd be fine with the Crozes Hermitage but not I'm afraid with the white Inycon Sicilia. Oh, well.

Regards

Ian

Posted by: Dave Grieve 31st Jul 2012, 10:31am

QUOTE (Dun Stoshious @ 31st Jul 2012, 03:07am) *
Looking at the prices quoted her for entry level spirits and beer, it is little wonder that there is a problem with alcohol abuse. These prices must put a range of alcohol within the reach of school children and the unemployed. In Australia recently there was a crack down on "alco-pops" ie. cans of rum&coke etc. The prices were raised drastically to prevent school kids accessing fizzy drunks. What ever good effect it may have engendered is not very apparent as teenage drunks are becoming a problem to such an extent, especially in NSW. that state conferences are being called in an attempt to deal with it. Raising prices unfairly affects those who are not in the category of dysfunctional anti-social drunks. There is a relationship between price and availability but the problem seems to lie in the availability.

Your last sentence is the key to solving the problem, although how it is going to be solved in a mad PC human rights demanding society like the UK I dont know.

Posted by: Jim D 31st Jul 2012, 10:59am

Over consumption of alcohol will always cause health and social problems. It is not confined to Scotland, it is world-wide. Raising the price of alcohol is not the answer. The famous Buckfast tonic wine has been blamed for all ills in Lanarkshire in recent year, to the extent that some foolish politician wrote to the Monks at Buckfast Abbey requesting that they refused to make deliveries to Lanarkshire! I saw it in a store the other week costing about 7.00 - 8.00 for a 75cl bottle. It is certainly not cheap and would probably not be subject to a price hike due to minimum pricing.

As it has already been pointed out, other countries have tried to go down the route of minimum pricing and have had their butt kicked by the european court. Does our first minister intend to ignore the previous findings? Probably!

Should they not be taking alcoholic content into consideration? Some beers on the market are so low in alcoholic content that they could have been sold in America during prohibition! Now, there's and idea! I think I email the Scottish Office. laugh.gif

Posted by: Dylan 2nd Aug 2012, 09:43pm

QUOTE (Dun Stoshious @ 31st Jul 2012, 02:07am) *
Looking at the prices quoted her for entry level spirits and beer, it is little wonder that there is a problem with alcohol abuse. These prices must put a range of alcohol within the reach of school children and the unemployed. In Australia recently there was a crack down on "alco-pops" ie. cans of rum&coke etc. The prices were raised drastically to prevent school kids accessing fizzy drunks. What ever good effect it may have engendered is not very apparent as teenage drunks are becoming a problem to such an extent, especially in NSW. that state conferences are being called in an attempt to deal with it. Raising prices unfairly affects those who are not in the category of dysfunctional anti-social drunks. There is a relationship between price and availability but the problem seems to lie in the availability.

Yes, very worrying, we must keep the bevy out of reach of the unemployed . !

" Dun Stoshious"--the glesga vernacular for " Stopped drinking ".

Like it thumbup.gif

Posted by: droschke7 3rd Aug 2012, 01:04pm

QUOTE (Dylan @ 2nd Aug 2012, 11:58pm) *
Yes, very worrying, we must keep the bevy out of reach of the unemployed . !

" Dun Stoshious"--the glesga vernacular for " Stopped drinking ".

Like it thumbup.gif

Have you seen the amount of "pocket money " the spoilt little brats get nowerdays? I'm a disabled ex Seviceman living on the pittance they call disability and some of the kids get more money than I do and they don't have to pay rent or electric or Gas etc. They are even getting presents of 1000 plus Laptops

Posted by: Doug1 15th Aug 2012, 03:49pm

Putting the price up is very unlikely to stop youngsters drinking. First of all many of these kids may well be seeing their own parents drinking at home so to them drinking is the norm. If you get a group of kids together you can be pretty sure that between them they will be able to rustle up a few quid to buy some cheap booze and they will always find someone to buy the stuff for them. The reason for the authorities going for the price angle is simple... Firstly they bring in more revenue and secondly they havent a clue about how to stop kids drinking alcohol

Posted by: Dylan 15th Aug 2012, 05:42pm

My children seen me drinking at home ?

Posted by: john.mcn 15th Aug 2012, 08:52pm

QUOTE (Doug1 @ 15th Aug 2012, 05:04pm) *
Putting the price up is very unlikely to stop youngsters drinking. First of all many of these kids may well be seeing their own parents drinking at home so to them drinking is the norm. If you get a group of kids together you can be pretty sure that between them they will be able to rustle up a few quid to buy some cheap booze and they will always find someone to buy the stuff for them. The reason for the authorities going for the price angle is simple... Firstly they bring in more revenue and secondly they havent a clue about how to stop kids drinking alcohol



I think the point is that 'cheap booze' will become less cheap, so that few pounds they rustle up will get them far less.
Drink abuse costs the country a fortune, if minimum pricing saves the public purse then surely it's a policy worth pusuing.

Posted by: wombat 15th Aug 2012, 09:02pm

smile.gif booze too dear?simple :make yer own yes.gif

Posted by: Dave Grieve 17th Aug 2012, 07:20am

QUOTE (wombat @ 15th Aug 2012, 11:17pm) *
smile.gif booze too dear?simple :make yer own yes.gif

My cousin used to make his own Peach Brandy. Leathal stuff but nice laugh.gif

Posted by: GG 18th Dec 2012, 06:01pm

QUOTE
Irish back alcohol plan

Scottish ministers have received strong support from the Irish Government in their battle with Brussels to avoid having minimum unit pricing of alcohol declared in breach of EU rules.

Health Secretary Alex Neil had a day of talks with EU bureaucrats last week after reports they were expected to rule against minimum unit pricing on trade grounds.

But Dr James Reilly, the Irish health minister, backed Scotland's position, saying: "I wish to express my full support for the Scottish proposals on minimum unit pricing of alcohol. ...

Full story here:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/political-news/irish-back-alcohol-plan.19636975

GG.

Posted by: john.mcn 18th Dec 2012, 09:16pm

QUOTE
Prime Minister David Cameron has proposed a 45p per unit minimum alcohol price in England and ministers there say they will stand "shoulder to shoulder" with Holyrood counterparts in challenging the Brussels ruling.

So why on earth did the tories oppose it at Holyrood last time around?

Posted by: bilbo.s 18th Dec 2012, 10:55pm

Well I bet it was not for the same reason I oppose it - which is because it is stoopit !

Posted by: JAGZ1876 19th Dec 2012, 06:35am

QUOTE (john.mcn @ 18th Dec 2012, 09:33pm) *
So why on earth did the tories oppose it at Holyrood last time around?


For the same reason Scottish laugh.gif Labour did, it was an SNP proposal.

Posted by: wee davy 19th Dec 2012, 04:10pm

I caught on the local news 3 barsclubs somewhere have already introduced 1.25 per unit! ??????????????????????????????????????????

Just wait for the speakeasy's to open up lol

Posted by: bilbo.s 19th Dec 2012, 05:35pm

Hauf a pint o´beer or a whisky fer 1.25 ? Haud me back ! Ye´re kiddin´, right? unsure.gif

Posted by: wee davy 19th Dec 2012, 06:06pm

Ah wish ah wiz!


Posted by: bilbo.s 19th Dec 2012, 06:08pm

No comprendo. unsure.gif

Posted by: JAGZ1876 19th Dec 2012, 08:25pm

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 19th Dec 2012, 05:52pm) *
Hauf a pint o´beer or a whisky fer 1.25 ? Haud me back ! Ye´re kiddin´, right? unsure.gif


If you can get a Whisky for 1.25 make mine a double Bill biggrin.gif

Posted by: GG 25th Apr 2013, 06:39am

Surprise, surprise?

QUOTE
Minimum pricing: Drinks industry 'distorted evidence'

The alcohol industry has been accused of distorting evidence in an attempt to influence the Scottish government over its minimum pricing policy.

Academics examined submissions made by the industry to the government's public consultation in 2008.

They said their research suggested the responses had "ignored, misrepresented and undermined" scientific evidence.

The Portman Group, which campaigns for the drinks industry on social responsibility, strongly disputed this.

The Scottish government's public consultation had looked at policy proposals aimed at introducing minimum unit pricing and ending drinks promotions including below-cost selling of alcoholic drinks. ...

Full story here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22250584

GG.

Posted by: droschke7 25th Apr 2013, 11:53am

I was in the Thornwood Pub at the Thornwood roundabout (close to Partick Police Station) recently, they are already charging 3.15 for a pint of cooking Lager (Tennents), and on Tuesday I was in the Quarter Gill with a friend and she paid 3.30 for a Cider and Black. So all this fuss about 50p a unit has already been overtaken by actual prices and paying all this cash just for a "New Legislation" is a complete waste of time and a complete waste of taxpayers money.

Posted by: john.mcn 25th Apr 2013, 01:41pm

The standard pub prices were never a problem, it was cheap prices in supermarkets that they were trying to push up.

Posted by: CAT 2nd Aug 2013, 10:49am

If anyone wishes to discuss this further meet me at the cyber pub. laugh.gif

Posted by: Jupiter 2nd Aug 2013, 11:47am

rolleyes.gif Drink is a demon,dont be tempted. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: CAT 2nd Aug 2013, 11:59am

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 2nd Aug 2013, 11:45am) *
rolleyes.gif Drink is a demon,dont be tempted. rolleyes.gif

Too late biggrin.gif

Posted by: droschke7 2nd Aug 2013, 01:54pm

I may have got it wrong but is a pint of 4,5% Lager not under 2 units? A can of Lager already costs, on average, 1 therefore it's already well over 50p a unit. What's all the fuss about?

Posted by: JAGZ1876 2nd Aug 2013, 02:03pm

QUOTE (droschke7 @ 2nd Aug 2013, 01:52pm) *
I may have got it wrong but is a pint of 4,5% Lager not under 2 units? A can of Lager already costs, on average, 1 therefore it's already well over 50p a unit. What's all the fuss about?


I always understood a half pint of beer was the equivalent of 1 unit so a pint would be 2 units.

I may be wrong though.

Posted by: john.mcn 2nd Aug 2013, 02:42pm

QUOTE (droschke7 @ 2nd Aug 2013, 01:52pm) *
I may have got it wrong but is a pint of 4,5% Lager not under 2 units? A can of Lager already costs, on average, 1 therefore it's already well over 50p a unit. What's all the fuss about?



It's the cheap booze they want to hit as well as the loss leading offers they used to advertise to get you instore to hopefully buy overinflated groceries. Unless you are a heavy drinker who binge drinks it probably wont affect you.

The fuss is because it's an SNP policy and we know the Unionists oppose anything they do, even if their London based bosses want similar policies for the rUK.

Posted by: scossie 3rd Aug 2013, 05:56am

....tooooolate...lol

Posted by: Dylan 3rd Aug 2013, 09:14am

It matters not which Political Party introduces this , it is a Tax on the poor.!!!

A Tax by any other name ?

Posted by: Jupiter 3rd Aug 2013, 11:22am

Dylan,I dont think it is a tax in the normal sense,I think it is a scheme to deter people from the drink.. For the good of their health.Certainly the government is hoping to save money on the treatment of patients due to alcohol abuse.
I think it is a massive sledgehammer to crack a nut.There will always be a way to get drink.
I think the wine producers in Europe and the Scottish Whisky Assoc,both very strong lobbies, will take this to the Supreme European Court as it has the potential to wreak havoc on these industries.I think they will win their case despite what the Court of Session has stated.
It is interesting the UK Govt has decided not to proceed with similar legislation.

Posted by: john.mcn 3rd Aug 2013, 12:07pm

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 3rd Aug 2013, 11:20am) *
It is interesting the UK Govt has decided not to proceed with similar legislation.



Could it be another Bernie ecclestone moment?

Posted by: Jupiter 3rd Aug 2013, 01:42pm

Youve got me there John. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: john.mcn 3rd Aug 2013, 03:22pm



Labour was set to introduce a blanket ban on cigarette advertising after their 1997 landslide election win, somehow F1 was excluded from this and it was later revealed Bernie Ecclestone (F1 owner) 'donated' 1m to the labour party.

Will we find out later that one or more of the big Distillery companies have donated to the Conservatives?

Posted by: JAGZ1876 3rd Aug 2013, 05:16pm

QUOTE (john.mcn @ 3rd Aug 2013, 03:20pm) *
Will we find out later that one or more of the big Distillery companies have donated to the Conservatives?


Your're not suggesting that the Tories can be bought, are you John? tongue.gif

Posted by: GG 4th Sep 2015, 08:14pm

The minimum alcohol pricing plan hits the buffers:

QUOTE
Alcohol price plans face further delay after European ruling

Plans to introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland face further delay, following an initial ruling by Europe's highest court.

MSPs passed legislation on 2012 which set a minimum unit price of 50p.
But European Court of Justice advocate general Yves Bot said the move risked infringing EU rules on free trade.

In an official opinion, he said it would only be legal if it could be shown no other mechanism could deliver the desired public health benefits.

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon welcomed the opinion, saying it confirmed that minimum unit pricing was not precluded by EU law.

The Scottish government, which has argued that minimum pricing is vital to address Scotland's "unhealthy relationship with drink", has been unable to implement the policy while the legal process is ongoing.

The Scottish legislation was challenged by the Scottish Whisky Association (SWA) in 2013, when it argued that it acted as a barrier to trade.

Its legal bid was initially rejected by judge Lord Doherty at the Court of Session in Edinburgh. ...

Full story here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34133269

GG.

Posted by: Billy Boil 7th Sep 2015, 11:21pm

QUOTE (GG @ 4th Sep 2015, 08:22pm) *
The minimum alcohol pricing plan hits the buffers:

Full story here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34133269

GG.

In my humble and time tested opinion, raising the price of alcohol will never address overall alcoholic consumption. In Australia alcohol and tobacco revenue rises automatically every year in every budget. There was also an added impost on fizzy alcopops drinks, which did nothing to limit the consumption of alcohol by teenagers.

In the "eighties" when people were turning to "shorts" as opposed to beer, the pub owners had the then state legislature double the tax on rum, vodka, whiskey etc. this worked until the price of beer rose up to meet it. Nobody ever stopped drinking. Prohibition in the U.S. gave rise to gangsterism and organized crime.

Will the further suppression of alcohol lead, as it is thought to do here, to an epidemic of cheap and vastly more damaging drugs?

Another question that arises here is why the "wine cultures" of Italy, Spain etc. do not have the "lager lout" drinking to danger culture that beer cultures have evolved?

Posted by: bilbo.s 8th Sep 2015, 12:11pm

Where I live in Spain, there is much more beer than wine consumed in bars. Still no sign of drunkenness !

Posted by: Dave Grieve 8th Sep 2015, 01:58pm

I wonder if the attitude towards binge drinking is determined by how restrictive the various governments are towards alcohol being freely available?

Think back to the ridiculous licensing hours in Scotland, closing at two, reopen at five and then closed again at ten!

Drink has always been freely available here in SA with most bars ever since I have been here open from early in the morning all day without closing until very late at night. If I want to have a beer with my breakfast it wouldn't be a problem as just about every restaurant is licensed.

When I first came here it was in your face the people who were cramming it down as if there was no tomorrow were the Brits. the locals enjoyed their drink and then went home.

Like Bilbo in Spain its rare to see a drunk in the street here.

Posted by: bilbo.s 8th Sep 2015, 02:32pm

You can buy a bottle of perfectly drinkable wine here for 1€ and spirits start about 4€ (less than 3 GBP). People do not drink pints, but 25 or 33 cl with a small tapa thrown in.

Posted by: carmella 8th Sep 2015, 05:12pm

It's the same throughout the Continent, you don't see drunks walking around the streets. Italy is my favourite place, and in all the years I've been going there, and the islands, I've never seen it - it is very refreshing.

On the other hand, my cousin who went to SA in the mid 70s, and who always had been a 'drinker' went daft because his favourite drink was Brandy which he could have for his breakfast, and often did on days when he wasn't working. I remember him telling me often how much he drank on his days off, because it was so readily available and very cheap - his wife was the same, she loved a drink - both don't do it now though.

Posted by: Scotsman 9th Sep 2015, 02:27pm

QUOTE (Billy Boil @ 8th Sep 2015, 12:29am) *
In my humble and time tested opinion, raising the price of alcohol will never address overall alcoholic consumption. In Australia alcohol and tobacco revenue rises automatically every year in every budget. There was also an added impost on fizzy alcopops drinks, which did nothing to limit the consumption of alcohol by teenagers.

In the "eighties" when people were turning to "shorts" as opposed to beer, the pub owners had the then state legislature double the tax on rum, vodka, whiskey etc. this worked until the price of beer rose up to meet it. Nobody ever stopped drinking. Prohibition in the U.S. gave rise to gangsterism and organized crime.

Will the further suppression of alcohol lead, as it is thought to do here, to an epidemic of cheap and vastly more damaging drugs?

Another question that arises here is why the "wine cultures" of Italy, Spain etc. do not have the "lager lout" drinking to danger culture that beer cultures have evolved?

Great post. I totally agree with what you say.... if you increase the price of cheap bevvy then the people who drink it will just have to find something else and that could mean more turn to drugs. The SNP have got this one wrong and looks like they are going to battle it out but in the end they are still wrong.

Posted by: Billy Boil 12th Sep 2015, 01:01am

The first time I went to the U.S. I was staggered at how cheap alcohol was.

I could go into a "garage" and pick up a quart of J.D. and a dozen beers for $10. I lived a while in Belgium where beer was consumed for breakfast, dinner and tea. But saw not much in the way of drunks. Likewise Holland.
There is now marginally more wine consumed in Australia than beer. Wine is comparatively cheap here, still very drinkable, in that great Australian invention, the wine cask, for $20 for 10Ltr. However Australia has problems with binge drinkers who see violence as part of their binge drinking life style.

As there has been a rise in this behaviour over a few short years, I tend to think it is the influence of drugs combined with alcohol that is fuelling this violence. The organization of society must play the more significant role here.

In Scotland drunken behaviour was seen as the desired norm among my generation this was equally or more so in Australia. We had here the same temporal restrictions on the sale of alcohol. The habits of the "6 O'clock swill"
(when pubs had to close at 6 P.M. and most men stopped work at 5 30.) continued until well after hours were altered. Only altered to 10.PM.

That alcohol is to blame cant be the whole answer. Mob violence in Muslim countries is endemic and they don't even get to drink! Poverty is no excuse as the richest countries all display (possible exception of Canada) unreasonable levels of gratuitous alcohol fuelled violence. It has a reason and one possible reason is that alcohol related crime is treated as a misdemeanour. When the automatic jail for "king hitting" anyone and restrictive entry into clubs was brought into law, street violence was greatly curtailed. Let alcohol related violence carry an additional penalty (not slap wrist community orders but custodial) and violence at least on the streets will be curtailed.

Posted by: Dave Grieve 12th Sep 2015, 12:05pm

Cant get much cheaper than this.


Posted by: Tally Rand 15th Sep 2015, 10:28pm

Once when I was living in Dublin and rather impecunious, I was approached one evening by a rather worse for wear individual who accosted me saying:
"Please help me sur. I am sick. I am an alcoholic and need the price of a drink." I gave up some of the money I had on the way to the pub to by myself a drink. I was so impressed by his honesty, and sad though it was I was possibly a candidate for that life style at the time.

Posted by: GG 15th Sep 2015, 10:38pm

People will always find a way to try to dull the pain and helplessness they feel in their lives; poor and deprived people, especially, have more hurt than most, and very little hope of a chance of escaping the cycle of despair they were born into.

I remember when I used to walk to school through a golf course, I would see fresh crisp pokes (from the night before) full of dry glue. When I got to school, pupils were getting high at the back of the class on Tippex.

In most cases, alcohol is not a cause of despair, it's a symptom. The SNP's pursuit of minimum pricing, in my opinion, if successful, will simply push more people into more dangerous forms of substance abuse ... as was the case in the past. There's no simple answer to a complicated and unrelenting problem.

GG.

Posted by: Tally Rand 17th Sep 2015, 09:19pm

Come oan Jimmy: alcoholics are the poor and depressed with miserable lives???

Alcohol like the "plague' discriminates against none. Deprived alcoholics more visible but are no more or less addicted than the affluent. And in many cases were the "affluent".

Posted by: JAGZ1876 22nd Sep 2015, 07:49am

QUOTE (Tally Rand @ 15th Sep 2015, 11:36pm) *
Once when I was living in Dublin and rather impecunious, I was approached one evening by a rather worse for wear individual who accosted me saying:
"Please help me sur. I am sick. I am an alcoholic and need the price of a drink." I gave up some of the money I had on the way to the pub to by myself a drink. I was so impressed by his honesty, and sad though it was I was possibly a candidate for that life style at the time.


What if you had been going to a newsagent to buy a packet of Cigarettes and an individual approached you and said "Please help me sur. I am sick. I am dying for a fag. I'm addicted to nicotine and need the price of a packet of fags"?

Would you have been so impressed by his honesty that you would hand him a tenner?

Posted by: Tally Rand 23rd Sep 2015, 10:01pm

Another sickness addiction, killed my father my aunt Agnes 6 of my close workmates, who in spite of all warnings, continued to smoke unto death. I am not one to judge as all world governments endorse smoking as a legal and viable way of self destruction.

Unless you have suffered nicotine withdrawal, the situation you have described above is a common and harsh affliction. Yes I would have probably given him the price of a fag.

Posted by: GG 21st Oct 2016, 09:11pm

QUOTE
Scottish courts back minimum alcohol price

Plans to set a minimum price for alcohol in Scotland have been backed by the Scottish courts.

The Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled against a challenge by the Scotch whisky industry, who claimed the plans were a breach of European Law.

The ruling now paves the way for the Scottish government to implement its policy, passed by MSPs in 2012.

However, the judgement could be appealed by the drinks industry at the UK Supreme Court in London.

Under the plans, a price of 50p per unit of alcohol would be set, taking a bottle of spirits to at least 14.

The Scottish government, health professionals, police, alcohol charities and some members of the drinks industry believe minimum pricing would help address Scotland's "unhealthy relationship with drink".

But the Scotch Whisky Association and wine makers brought a challenge claiming it was a breach of trade law.

They said other policies should be considered as an alternative to minimum pricing, including an increase in tax. [...]

Full story here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37725251

GG.

Posted by: Billy Boil 23rd Oct 2016, 08:37pm

QUOTE (GG @ 21st Oct 2016, 09:11pm) *
Full story here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37725251

GG.

Honestly I see it as having little or no effect. I am in no way sure of the buying power of Sterling, but £14 seems all to cheap for a bottle of spirits. (cheap spirits in AUS. $30). It appears political tinkering around the edges s done in an effort to assume that politicians are, if only in appearance, making an effort to solve the problem. An Irishman I worked with once made a remark that the worst drinkers he ever encountered were Glasgow Scots. He referred to them as "professional drinkers". This pride in conspicuous consumption has long blighted the Scottish social scene, (I am not exempt from) and the problem is not availability, (France, Germany, Italy Spain etc. have far more availability as to alcoholic beverages than the Scottish experience), but without the accompanying violence and drinking in danger.

Posted by: pumps100 24th Oct 2016, 06:38pm

Hi all,

I have just re-read the 13 pages of posts going back to early 2012. Well done Scotland!

Regards

Ian

Posted by: DannyH 24th Oct 2016, 10:49pm

This is developing into a situation where the SNP may finish up shooting themselves in the foot.

Forgetting about the argument for setting a minimum price for alcohol, what is interesting is that the SNP has won the 'first round' by getting the Court of Session backing for their change to the pricing of alchohol. The whiskey association is now threatening to go to the Supreme Court, arguing that this breaks EU trade laws.

Isn't the SNP all for EU trade for Scotland?

Danny Harris

Posted by: pumps100 25th Oct 2016, 08:09am

I think the issue with EU trade law has already been previously dealt with in 2013 - they passed it back to the local jurisdiction to determine what they do.

With regard to the Scottish Whisky Association (SWA) continuing to pursue the matter via the UK Supreme Court that remains to be seen.

As the SWA products would be largely unaffected by MAP - 80% is exported - I personally don't see whats in it for them other than to incur more legal costs.

The 20% of whisky consumed in the UK the bulk would be branded products largely unaffected by MAP. I don't know the percentage of whisky actually drink in Scotland but if I was guessing maybe only 1-2% of the total. Deduct from this unaffected branded products then the own labeled 'value' products which would be affected by MAP must be very small indeed.

http://www.thenational.scot/news/scotch-whisky-association-urged-to-drop-legal-action-against-minimum-alcohol-pricing-after-court-of-session-ruling.23888

Regards

Ian

Posted by: pumps100 25th Oct 2016, 06:46pm

Surprise announcement today that David Frost the Chief Executive of Scottish Whisky Association has resigned. He is going to work as a special advisor to Boris Johnson in the Foreign Office. Starts his new job on 4th November.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-37765156

Regards

Ian

Posted by: GG 7th Nov 2016, 10:27pm

A related story today:

QUOTE
Scots NHS bosses suggest alcohol sale ban before 5pm

Shops could be told to stop selling alcohol during the day under new NHS proposals to curb the harm caused by drinking.

Public health experts from NHS Shetland suggested that sales of drink should be banned until late afternoon or evening as part of a new report on substance abuse.

The report’s authors warn that alcohol has become “embedded” in society, citing figures that around three quarters of all alcohol drunk in Scotland was now bought from supermarkets or off licences.

There are currrently around 670 hospital admissions a week in Scotland due to alcohol, while 22 people die every seven days from related conditions.

The report said: “Restricting licensing hours would be a big help, if off-sales were not permitted until late afternoon or evening rather than from 10am.” [...]

Full story here:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scots-nhs-bosses-suggest-alcohol-sale-ban-before-5pm-1-4279465

GG.

Posted by: bilbo.s 7th Nov 2016, 10:49pm

QUOTE (GG @ 7th Nov 2016, 11:27pm) *
A related story today:

Full story here:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scots-nhs-bosses-suggest-alcohol-sale-ban-before-5pm-1-4279465

GG.


IMHO this proposal is without merit, much as is the minimum price scheme. Neither will have any effect on the problem. More civilised countries have no such restrictions, cheaper alcohol and easier access without silly timetables, without the drunken behaviour seen by many British both at home and abroad. I fear I do not know the answer to the problem as it seems to be an ingrained part of British "culture", although the majority of citizens drink and act responsibly. Is poverty the cause? I don't think so, as young people from affluent backgrounds are also affected. There is poverty in other countries without the same result. I wish I knew the solution, but neither pricing nor the tightening of already illogical licensing hours will achieve anything.

Posted by: Dykejumper 8th Nov 2016, 11:03am

Good grief ! I agree with everything bilbo wrote.

Posted by: bilbo.s 8th Nov 2016, 01:58pm

QUOTE (Dykejumper @ 8th Nov 2016, 12:03pm) *
Good grief ! I agree with everything bilbo wrote.



Dinna fash yersel! biggrin.gif Just as no two people are likely to agree on everything, no two people are likely to disagree on everything.

Posted by: wombat 8th Nov 2016, 07:46pm

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 7th Nov 2016, 10:49pm) *
IMHO this proposal is without merit, much as is the minimum price scheme. Neither will have any effect on the problem. More civilised countries have no such restrictions, cheaper alcohol and easier access without silly timetables, without the drunken behaviour seen by many British both at home and abroad. I fear I do not know the answer to the problem as it seems to be an ingrained part of British "culture", although the majority of citizens drink and act responsibly. Is poverty the cause? I don't think so, as young people from affluent backgrounds are also affected. There is poverty in other countries without the same result. I wish I knew the solution, but neither pricing nor the tightening of already illogical licensing hours will achieve anything.


rolleyes.gif thumbup.gif

Posted by: Talisman 9th Nov 2016, 09:13pm

QUOTE (droschke7 @ 14th May 2012, 01:08am) *
Easy for you to say Ian But last time i looked Reading wasn't in Scotland,

If that is the reason why is Spain, Greece and Portugal devoid of (except in the case of dysfunctional U.K. drunks) of all violent, aggressive and dangerous drunks. Yet are subject to freely available cheap alcohol on a 24 hour per day basis???

Posted by: wombat 9th Nov 2016, 09:30pm

QUOTE (Talisman @ 9th Nov 2016, 10:13pm) *
If that is the reason why is Spain, Greece and Portugal devoid of (except in the case of dysfunctional U.K. drunks) of all violent, aggressive and dangerous drunks. Yet are subject to freely available cheap alcohol on a 24 hour per day basis???


rolleyes.gif Ermm,perhaps they have a different mentality in those countries talisman yes.gif