Ministers propose Scottish minimum drink price of 45p

Ministers propose Scottish minimum drink price of 45p

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...04381508-1.jpg
Nicola Sturgeon says the alcohol pricing policy would help prevent 50 deaths in the first year


The Scottish government has announced that it wants alcohol to be sold at a minimum of 45p per unit.
The SNP's minimum price plan, which is contained in its Alcohol Bill, is an attempt to reduce consumption.
If agreed, the change would see a two-litre bottle of Tesco brand cider go from £1.32 to £3.80, while Asda whisky would rise from £9.20 to £12.60.
Opposition parties at Holyrood intend to unite to block the policy as they say it would hit responsible drinkers.




But Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon has maintained that costs would only rise for high-strength products sold at rock-bottom prices.
According to the government's figures, there would be no change in the cost of brands like Bell's, Whyte & Mackay or Johnnie Walker, which all currently retail above £14.
MSPs in the Scottish Parliament voted for the principles of the Alcohol (Scotland) Bill in June.

'Health professionals'


But opposition parties, who have a majority, have vowed to remove plans for minimum pricing at a later date.
The bill will come before MSPs at the Stage 2 committee later in the month and ministers have decided to name the minimum 45p per unit price so that it can be included in those discussions.
Nicola Sturgeon said that by introducing a minimum 45p per unit price, there would be 50 fewer deaths in the first year after the policy was implemented, a £5.5m reduction in health care costs and 1,200 fewer hospital admissions from alcohol-related conditions.


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...i009860673.jpg
The measures are aimed at curbing Scotland's drinking culture


She said: "Getting the price right is vital for minimum pricing to work - too low and it will simply be ineffective.
"After careful consideration, we believe that 45p per unit is the right price.
"Our proposals have already won backing from respected health professionals at home and abroad and I hope, for the sake of our nation's health, they will also win the backing of the Scottish Parliament."
The minimum pricing move has received the backing of the British Medical Association in Scotland, the Royal College of Physicians and Alcohol Concern.
But it has been criticised by some drinks companies and the Scottish Retail Consortium, as well as opposition parties at Holyrood.
On Tuesday, the Scottish Labour Party's alcohol commission published its report into the alternatives to minimum pricing.



It recommended a UK-wide "floor price" for alcohol, which would ban drink sales below the total cost of production, duty and VAT.
The commission, which was chaired by Professor Sally Brown, called for duty rises to be the "main lever" for achieving price increases.
However, the health secretary said this UK-wide approach would "pass the buck to Westminster", and Alcohol Focus Scotland said it was unworkable because of the difficulty of calculating production costs.
The SNP's minimum price policy was first mooted in March 2009, but the Scottish government had, until now, failed to put a figure on how much would be charged.
It had stated that it must examine all of the evidence before coming to a final decision - although 40p per unit had been suggested.


'Extra revenue'

Scottish Lib Dem justice spokesman Robert Brown said: "The SNP have taken a very narrow view of the whole process, totally ignoring much more effective solutions which would cover the entire UK, something which the coalition government is already considering.
"They clearly prefer a pricing mechanism that stops artificially at the border."
Jackie Baillie, Labour's health spokeswoman, said: "The SNP have got this one badly wrong. A minimum price of 45p per unit will make no difference to the cost of problem drinks, like Buckfast, but it will punish pensioners and people on low incomes.
"According to the Scottish government's own study, a minimum price of 45p per unit will deliver over £140m of extra revenue for retailers. But it won't create a single extra penny for more police or the NHS."
The Wine and Spirit Trade Association said a minimum price was wrong in principle and would punish families on low incomes and pensioners.
The Scottish Grocers' Federation welcomed the proposals, saying they would stop the "irresponsible selling" of alcohol below cost by large supermarkets and help to level the playing field between small shops and bigger chains.
But they warned it could create a cross-border and internet trade in drink.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11155653

As much as I've always been against these kind of ideas, 45p per unit sounds fairly sensible to me.

It a disgrace for the poor who just want to drink and not harm anyone else. Living up Scotland and being poor to boot, no wonder they drink tbh.

Oh well.. push the really poor to meths ;) I promise that will happen:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Over carl

As much as I've always been against these kind of ideas, 45p per unit sounds fairly sensible to me.

---

45p per unit sounds great but then a unit should be a bottle or crate. :yes:

I think its a good idea. People drink too much these days. This would put Tescos Super Strength larger out of reach of the mother in law who is slowly drinking her self to death. After seeing my father in law die a slow painful alcohol related death I'm all for it :)

It'll start at 45p and rise, like everything else. A stupid idea that won't curb anything, those who drink to excess once/twice a week will continue to do so and those who are physically dependant will just spend more money on alcohol and less money on 'essentials' or they will find something else to drink (like alkys in hospitals who go for hand wash etc).

Scottish Labour and the Lib Dems have been very vocal in their opposition of this, and then when they realised that Labour in Wales, The Con Libdem Government they decided they would hold their own commission on it, and have come up with the same idea but they oppose the SNP proposal because anything the SNP propose they will go against.
A recent proposal by Scottish Labour which the SNP voted in favour for nearly collapsed because Scottish Labour thinking the SNP were promoting the idea then voted against their own proposal

Scottish Labour RIP

Nothing will stop people getting pissed but it will be interesting to see if this helps .

Just looked at the bud that I'm drinking. I got it on the 3 cases for £20, that's 45 bottles which works out at 45p a bottle. They are only 300 ml but according to the label they are 1.5 units, that works out under the proposed bill at 68p.

This works out at £1.27 a pint, and as standard cans are 440ml you are looking at £1 a can. Looking at the asda website on 4 cans of 440ml bud is £4 so that works out the same price.

The bottle of wine I will be shortly drinking is 9.4 units will cost £4.23. I got 3 bottles for £12 normally it is £7.98 a bottle.

This means it will not really affect me just those that buy the cheap crap and those that go for bogofs.

Surely bogofs won't be covered though...because you're technically only buying one and getting the other free. That'll be how they get round it. Or have i got the wrong end of the stick?

Quote:

---

Nothing will stop people getting pissed but it will be interesting to see if this helps

---

Why? would you like to see people not getting pissed?
Pissed and breaking common law is bad but if not then... Go and get merry and let it kill you if that's what you want!!

COMMON LAW!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FourRings

Surely bogofs won't be covered though...because you're technically only buying one and getting the other free. That'll be how they get round it. Or have i got the wrong end of the stick?

---

No, the sign can have whatever it wants on it - you are buying two and paying the price the shop normally charges for 1. In the eyes of the law it's just products for £x regardless of whether that's twice as much as you'd normally get for £x or not.

This minimum pricing could almost work and is actually a semi good idea as it would take away the terribly available alcohol. However, here are the other fucking terribly awful ideas the SNP have proposed or done recently, showing their total lack of skills with dealing with alcohol problems:

• They made a rule that you can only sell alcohol from certain areas in shops - Scottish shops now need to mark out an area on a map of the store when applying for a license and can sell only alcohol and soft drinks from this area, and no alcohol from anywhere else.
• They tried to put the drinking age in scotland up to 21 despite the overwhelming evidence that the majority of heavy regular drinkers and life-endangering drinkers are much older. When this was voted out in a landslide and frankly emabrassing vote in the Scottish Parliament, they immediately tried to pass bills to devolve the alcohol age to local councils so that all SNP-controlled councils could raise it and force neighbouring ones to do the same to avoid youth pisshead tourism. This has also been laughed at.
• They identified a problem with people buying large quantities of cheap booze from the supermarket and drinking it on their own or with a few mates and not enough sociable drinking in the local. To solve this, they banned all alcohol promotions in pubs but not supermarkets, meaning no happy hours or 5-for-4 deals or anything. This, of course, had the exact opposite effect and pubs can no longer attract social drinkers and more people go to the supermarket.
• Changing alcohol licences for shops from 8am to 10am. I used to work in an off-license and nobody buys drink at this time, apart from alcoholics waiting for 8am and (mostly) people on their way to work buying wine for that evening that they will just buy later anyway, or possibly in more bulk for convenience.

There is enough alcohol sold in Scotland every month for every single adult to drink more than the government's recommended safe limit every single day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbshark

This means it will not really affect me just those that buy the cheap crap and those that go for bogofs.

---

What happens when they put the price up and it does start to affect you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by super mike

What happens when they put the price up and it does start to affect you?

---

More innocents get mugged or burgled to finance the addiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwoPlAnKs

Changing alcohol licences for shops from 8am to 10am. I used to work in an off-license and nobody buys drink at this time, apart from alcoholics waiting for 8am and (mostly) people on their way to work buying wine for that evening that they will just buy later anyway, or possibly in more bulk for convenience.

---

I remember when I used to be a security guard doing 7pm -7am shifts, I would sometimes love a quick beer or two when I got in. Always used to get looked at like a real alky on those trips :D

If you think its there to save lives your'e deluded, its a corporate tax as alcohol sales are going through the roof!

Good ole ronald Reagan was a wise man in his view of the economy.

"view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DelTrotter

If you think its there to save lives your'e deluded, its a corporate tax as alcohol sales are going through the roof!

Good ole ronald Reagan was a wise man in his view of the economy.

"view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

---

It's not a tax in any way shape or form. It's price fixing - the money doesn't go to the government. Supermarket leaders, including the guy who runs Tesco, have supported it for obvious reasons. People think that in Scotland alone it's worth £140,000,000 a year to them.

The supermarket chains have all said they would be happy to fix the prices themselves, but if only one did it then the others would continue to sell alcohol at a loss to get people in the door and make more money. To form an agreement to fix the prices between them all would be illegal price fixing.

I find it very strange that the government are doing it this way and handing money straight to the rich people, especially since it is taken from the poor (the ones who buy cheap booze) If I was them, I actually would do it like a tax by scrapping the existing tax and adding a per-unit one, since this could be done to either let the £140,000,000 increase government funds or make expensive alcohol cheaper to support the whisky industry, one of Scotland's biggest industries. Either way it would be better than bloody Tesco getting it imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwoPlAnKs

It's not a tax in any way shape or form. It's price fixing - the money doesn't go to the government.

---

As tax works as a percentage, it will increase the tax revenue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwoPlAnKs

It's not a tax in any way shape or form. It's price fixing - the money doesn't go to the government. Supermarket leaders, including the guy who runs Tesco, have supported it for obvious reasons. People think that in Scotland alone it's worth £140,000,000 a year to them.

The supermarket chains have all said they would be happy to fix the prices themselves, but if only one did it then the others would continue to sell alcohol at a loss to get people in the door and make more money. To form an agreement to fix the prices between them all would be illegal price fixing.

I find it very strange that the government are doing it this way and handing money straight to the rich people, especially since it is taken from the poor (the ones who buy cheap booze) If I was them, I actually would do it like a tax by scrapping the existing tax and adding a per-unit one, since this could be done to either let the £140,000,000 increase government funds or make expensive alcohol cheaper to support the whisky industry, one of Scotland's biggest industries. Either way it would be better than bloody Tesco getting it imo.

---

I agree with that about tesco. :yes:

If they (Scots Govt) introduce a 45p per unit of alcohol charge, that Tesco strong cider will have to double in price whilst Magners cider would go down in price, obviously it won't go down in price but hopefully it'll make magners drinkers think twice when they go & buy their over-priced Chinese concentrated apple juice drink, that gets made in to cider & bottled in Ireland?

Tig3