THE minimum pricing of alcohol in Scotland is an understandable attempt to help reduce the considerable misery and harm caused by binge drinking and the general overconsumption of alcohol. But it is a measure that is particularly aimed at poorer people, young or old – any attempt to control the habits of people by making something more expensive is essentially an attempt to control the behaviour of poorer people. Let’s not pretend otherwise. Meanwhile, those who are better off – including MSPs, public health officials, social workers, journalists, et al – will continue to be able to afford to imbibe if they so wish and neck all the bevvy they want.
It’s this paternalism and hypocrisy underlying the legislation and much of the support for it which troubles me. I say this as someone at the poorer end of society who is aware of the misery and the long-term harm the overconsumption of alcohol can cause, especially to children.
It’s interesting to contrast the Scottish Government’s readiness to legislate on this matter with its mealy-mouthed approach to the issue of raising taxes – a measure that could help alleviate the widespread poverty which is arguably even more of a blight on communities and generations than alcohol-related harm and which is also a major factor contributing to dependence on alcohol.
They have been praised for being prepared to take on powerful vested interests opposed to minimum pricing, yet have so far shown themselves to be too feart to go ahead and raise income tax, something that would impact on the better-off.
I realise that I am challenging the dominant narrative regarding this: minimum pricing has been portrayed as a victory for David over Goliath, as progressive and the mark of a modern forward-looking country; but, for me, its distinct whiff of paternalism and sour aftertaste of hypocrisy harks back to a troubling conservatism.
Mo Maclean
I’D like to answer the “Catch-22 question” posed by Lesley Riddoch (The Scottish Government did the impossible … it took on the drinks industry and won, The National, November 16).
I am surprised that someone as intelligent as Lesley Riddoch can’t work out the answer to such a question herself. “How can a 50p minimum price per unit both be destructive of Scottish jobs and make no difference to hardened drinkers?”
Well, there are two sides to this question and each side is represented by a different section of society. First there are the “hardened drinkers”. Let’s be fair and recognise that 95 per cent of these are alcoholics. That is, they are addicted to the consumption of alcohol. As such, these people will find the money to carry on drinking by any means at their disposal.
So, that’s how it will make no difference to hardened drinkers.
Then there’s the second part of the question and that affects people like me. I am a pensioner. I live entirely on my own with virtually no social life. I sometimes feel very lonely. It is a recognised fact that loneliness affects the vast majority of pensioners in Britain today. On the paltry amount that the Westminster government pays in the way of a pension, most of us are unable to afford a night out. We can’t afford the cost of taxis to get us back and forth to the pub so we buy a bottle of whisky or sherry or gin, and sit alone at home with a wee drink that helps to alleviate the loneliness.
Yesterday I bought a litre of whisky for £14.99. That litre contains 40 x 25ml units. So as from next year that bottle will increase to £20. I can’t afford to spend that much extra for alcohol, nor can thousands of others just like me. So, we will all cut back on the amount we drink to keep it within what we can afford. That means there will be less spirits sold.
We’ve already seen a drop of 1 million bottles of whisky sales in the first six months of the year due to 36p put on the price of whisky in tax by the Chancellor. So, how much greater will the next drop be? I believe it will be a substantial drop in sales. That will affect production in the distilleries; that in turn will lead to a drop in the amount to be delivered, so fewer delivery drivers and lower sales in the supermarkets, so jobs going there also. And that is how it will also be destructive of Scottish jobs – simple really!
Charlie Kerr
Glenrothes
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel