scottsdad Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 10 minutes ago, sophia said: I also listened to the interview and I thought she did well in expressing that the policy is part of a strategy that is supported by a wide range of objective experts. The only significant opposition is coming from the loud mouth and simplistic tories. The tories supported it first time around, but not now as they a) haven't seen any benefits and b)are concerned that MUP exacerbates harms to the hardcore alcoholics (missing meals etc). I am no fan of the tories but here they are the only ones asking questions rather than just voting through this pointless measure. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB_Bino Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 15 hours ago, scottsdad said: The tories supported it first time around, but not now as they a) haven't seen any benefits and b)are concerned that MUP exacerbates harms to the hardcore alcoholics (missing meals etc). I am no fan of the tories but here they are the only ones asking questions rather than just voting through this pointless measure. ......or are they just objecting everything to try and make the SNP look bad in the year of a General Election that they're party looks set to lose? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 40 minutes ago, BB_Bino said: ......or are they just objecting everything to try and make the SNP look bad in the year of a General Election that they're party looks set to lose? It's a plausible hypothesis that can't be discarded out of hand but I'd also suggest another couple of possibilities... The idea of interfering in the market was always ideologically problematic for Tories and they were always liable to to ditch it when politically convenient The people that make Grant's Vodka have donated lots of money to the Tories in return for them defending their interests 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Waldo Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 2 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: It's a plausible hypothesis that can't be discarded out of hand but I'd also suggest another couple of possibilities... The idea of interfering in the market was always ideologically problematic for Tories and they were always liable to to ditch it when politically convenient The people that make Grant's Vodka have donated lots of money to the Tories in return for them defending their interests I think you've mixed up two companies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 On 17/04/2024 at 21:22, scottsdad said: The tories supported it first time around, but not now as they a) haven't seen any benefits and b)are concerned that MUP exacerbates harms to the hardcore alcoholics (missing meals etc). I am no fan of the tories but here they are the only ones asking questions rather than just voting through this pointless measure. Never a good look with that or indeed being associated with the company that are positively engaging with you and your misunderstanding of the policy. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted April 19 Author Share Posted April 19 9 hours ago, sophia said: Never a good look with that or indeed being associated with the company that are positively engaging with you and your misunderstanding of the policy. Whereas slavishly accepting a policy because you like the party introducing it - regardless of the harms caused by it - is a good look? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 4 minutes ago, scottsdad said: Whereas slavishly accepting a policy because you like the party introducing it - regardless of the harms caused by it - is a good look? I'm no fan of MUP but this is a policy supported by every political party at Holyrood bar the Scottish Tories. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 15 hours ago, Mr Waldo said: I think you've mixed up two companies. It’s Glens isn’t it thank you for your proof reading services 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: I'm no fan of MUP but this is a policy supported by every political party at Holyrood bar the Scottish Tories. That doesn't make it good legislation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 1 hour ago, strichener said: That doesn't make it good legislation. And where did I say it was? More the point that it's not just an SNP policy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 47 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: And where did I say it was? More the point that it's not just an SNP policy. Well I don't see the relevance tbh. Are you suggesting that any legislation that is passed without cross party support is somehow inferior or less legitimate? If not then by definition the fact that too many legislators are incapable of admitting when a law has failed in meeting it's stated aims does not somehow give it more legitimacy. This really is one of those don't back down, double down situations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted April 19 Author Share Posted April 19 From the Public Health Scotland report itself, page 78 (if the SNP can cherry-pick their favourite bits, so can I) Quote There was evidence that some dependent drinkers reduced spending on food. There is some evidence that MUP may have exacerbated existing coping strategies such as begging and stealing in some homeless and street drinkers. Look at Table 3 from the same report (pages 79-81). It lists the scientific evidence and what was found: One paper (and only one) showed the 13% drop that has been used to show this is a "success". Four papers showed no impact of MUP Two papers point out reduced spending on food in alcoholics Others talk about crime, cross-border buying etc. But read the report - better yet, read the scientific papers themselves! https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/20366/evaluating-the-impact-of-minimum-unit-pricing-for-alcohol-in-scotland-final-report.pdf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 3 hours ago, strichener said: Well I don't see the relevance tbh. Are you suggesting that any legislation that is passed without cross party support is somehow inferior or less legitimate? If not then by definition the fact that too many legislators are incapable of admitting when a law has failed in meeting it's stated aims does not somehow give it more legitimacy. This really is one of those don't back down, double down situations. The relevance is that a policy can be supported by a sizeable majority of MSPS and still be a shite policy. Ownership of shite policies is not the preserve of the SNP. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 I confess that I might have missed it, but was there any 'but they'll spend less money on food or on their kids' stuff over the the period when the price of cigarettes has relentlessly risen? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 37 minutes ago, Suspect Device said: Increase MUP to £5, that'll sort it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Bully Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 15 minutes ago, strichener said: Increase MUP to £5, that'll sort it. Reading the article - 5th para: “Scotland had a slower rise than the UK as a whole but remains the worst-affected country for alcohol-specific deaths.” 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 13 minutes ago, Wee Bully said: Reading the article - 5th para: “Scotland had a slower rise than the UK as a whole but remains the worst-affected country for alcohol-specific deaths.” Benefits of minimum unit pricing Modelling estimates that over the first five-year period of minimum unit pricing there will be: 400 fewer alcohol-related deaths 8,000 fewer alcohol-related hospital admissions At full effect, after 20 years, there will be: 120 fewer alcohol-related deaths per year 2,000 fewer alcohol-related hospital admissions per year So the legislation was intended to reduce alcohol-related deaths, therefore it isn't fixing the issues that it was designed to tackle. But I am sure you already knew that as it has been pointed out numerous times already. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 A death rate of 30 / 100,000 among Scottish men is massively high. I tried to find a comparison, the Our World In Data page would have that as the highest in the world - I assume the figure in the STV report is calculated differently. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-alcohol-use-disorders?tab=table 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Bully Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 12 minutes ago, strichener said: Benefits of minimum unit pricing Modelling estimates that over the first five-year period of minimum unit pricing there will be: 400 fewer alcohol-related deaths 8,000 fewer alcohol-related hospital admissions At full effect, after 20 years, there will be: 120 fewer alcohol-related deaths per year 2,000 fewer alcohol-related hospital admissions per year So the legislation was intended to reduce alcohol-related deaths, therefore it isn't fixing the issues that it was designed to tackle. But I am sure you already knew that as it has been pointed out numerous times already. You are of course right. We would have been better matching the rise in the rest of the UK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.