The Very Meh Humza Yousaf Thread.

[Leith Green]

2 hours ago, strichener said:

I would also consider the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Act 2012 as an other example although this one is more opinion than fact.

I think the facts suggest that your opinion would be wrong on that one...............

[strichener]

1 hour ago, Leith Green said:

I think the facts suggest that your opinion would be wrong on that one...............

Which "facts" are these?  Had the introduction of minimum prices made Scotland healthier than down south?  Or has it increased the profit margin for retailers whilst not making one measurable difference to those that it was supposed to target.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

4 hours ago, strichener said:

You stated "any" legislation that differs from down south.  I give you the presumption against short sentences, the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, The named person Legislation.  These were all attempts by the SNP to be different to down south where there can be no suggestion that this would be an improvement.  I would also consider the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Act 2012 as an other example although this one is more opinion than fact.

The support of a named person is still available to all children, young people and their families. However, there is no obligation on children, young people and families to accept the offer of advice or support from a named person.

The principle of the Act was absolutely right but the implementation (in particular the information-sharing aspects) a complete mess.  Unfortunately the botched implementation allowed the Christian right to claim some sort of victory of family over state - when the reality was more complex.

[StellarHibee]

2 hours ago, strichener said:

Which "facts" are these?  Had the introduction of minimum prices made Scotland healthier than down south?  Or has it increased the profit margin for retailers whilst not making one measurable difference to those that it was supposed to target.

That's consumer choice. If people are prepared to pay more for alcohol, they'll have less money for nicotine and takeaways (which thanks to the economic incompetence of the UK Government are also ridiculously expensive).

[strichener]

7 hours ago, StellarHibee said:

That's consumer choice. If people are prepared to pay more for alcohol, they'll have less money for nicotine and takeaways (which thanks to the economic incompetence of the UK Government are also ridiculously expensive).

Really, you think it is acceptable for people with alcohol problems to be further cutting back of food so that the middle classes have one less glass of wine with their dinner?  That is what the implementation of this bill has resulted in.

Never mind eh, they can always sell their flat screen TVs and gaming consoles and iPhones.

Our alcohol problems are not solved by increasing the cost and reducing support for the voluntary sector.

[strichener]

9 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

The support of a named person is still available to all children, young people and their families. However, there is no obligation on children, young people and families to accept the offer of advice or support from a named person.

The principle of the Act was absolutely right but the implementation (in particular the information-sharing aspects) a complete mess.  Unfortunately the botched implementation allowed the Christian right to claim some sort of victory of family over state - when the reality was more complex.

The law was never properly enacted because it was poorly drafted and in breach of the Human Rights legislation.  Which puts paid to the assertion in the post that I responded to which was that anything we do differently from down south is an improvement.

[Leith Green]

9 hours ago, strichener said:

Which "facts" are these?  Had the introduction of minimum prices made Scotland healthier than down south?  Or has it increased the profit margin for retailers whilst not making one measurable difference to those that it was supposed to target.

There was a fair bit of coverage of this a month or so back.

If you are suggesting this is wrong, then I cba arguing tbqhwy - 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/21/scotlands-minimum-pricing-linked-to-13-drop-in-alcohol-related-deaths-study-finds

[thisal]

13 minutes ago, strichener said:

Really, you think it is acceptable for people with alcohol problems to be further cutting back of food so that the middle classes have one less glass of wine with their dinner?  That is what the implementation of this bill has resulted in.

Never mind eh, they can always sell their flat screen TVs and gaming consoles and iPhones.

Our alcohol problems are not solved by increasing the cost and reducing support for the voluntary sector.

I'm pretty sure the minimum cost of alcohol doesn't impact the cost of the middle classes glass of wine.

Edited May 11, 2023 by thisal

[strichener]

30 minutes ago, thisal said:

I'm pretty sure the minimum cost of alcohol doesn't impact the cost of the middle classes glass of wine.

Not everyone drinks Châteauneuf-du-Pape.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

2 hours ago, strichener said:

The law was never properly enacted because it was poorly drafted and in breach of the Human Rights legislation.  Which puts paid to the assertion in the post that I responded to which was that anything we do differently from down south is an improvement.

I was actually agreeing with you - commenting on how much of a mess the legislation was. The Human Rights breaches were to do with data protection.

Edited May 11, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

22 hours ago, StellarHibee said:

You don't get arrested in Scotland for questioning the non-elected hierarchy for a start.

That doesn’t happen in England either.

[strichener]

58 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

I was actually agreeing with you - commenting on how much of a mess the legislation was. The Human Rights breaches were to do with data protection.

Apologies, it must have been the novelty. 

Edited May 11, 2023 by strichener

[StellarHibee]

4 hours ago, strichener said:

Really, you think it is acceptable for people with alcohol problems to be further cutting back of food so that the middle classes have one less glass of wine with their dinner?  That is what the implementation of this bill has resulted in.

Do you actually have the statistics to back this up? People with alcohol problems have to reduce their alcohol consumption over time until they're able to stop. The only option they have is to stop, otherwise it will always be a problem. People with serious alcohol problems barely eat anyway, almost all of their disposable income goes towards alcohol. So yes, making it more expensive is a good thing. Not only does it force alcoholics to consume less, it discourages others from falling into the trap of alcoholism, which is a far easier trap to fall into than most people realise.

Your problem is that you don't have an alcohol problem yourself. You just don't like having to pay more for the odd bottle of wine or whatever. Tough.

[StellarHibee]

1 hour ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

That doesn’t happen in England either.

Evidently it does.

[strichener]

22 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

Do you actually have the statistics to back this up? People with alcohol problems have to reduce their alcohol consumption over time until they're able to stop. The only option they have is to stop, otherwise it will always be a problem. People with serious alcohol problems barely eat anyway, almost all of their disposable income goes towards alcohol. So yes, making it more expensive is a good thing. Not only does it force alcoholics to consume less, it discourages others from falling into the trap of alcoholism, which is a far easier trap to fall into than most people realise.

Your problem is that you don't have an alcohol problem yourself. You just don't like having to pay more for the odd bottle of wine or whatever. Tough.

Yes there are statistics to back this up.  I also haven't touched alcohol for over 20 years so the cost of alcohol has no affect on me.  So no, not tough on me.

Your post on this topic does show that you have absolutely no idea of how addiction affects people or what addicts will do to make sure that they can get their required fix.

Edited May 11, 2023 by strichener

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

I fully agree with Strichener’s points about alcoholics not cutting down or stopping due to price hikes.  A true alcoholic will prioritise buying drink over anything else.

I don’t think minimum pricing will significantly change the behaviours of existing alcoholics, but may stop your average Joe from filling up their trolley with as much drink, which may lead to long term, positive results.

[vikingTON]

16 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

I fully agree with Strichener’s points about alcoholics not cutting down or stopping due to price hikes.  A true alcoholic will prioritise buying drink over anything else.

I don’t think minimum pricing will significantly change the behaviours of existing alcoholics, but may stop your average Joe from filling up their trolley with as much drink, which may lead to long term, positive results.

A regressive tax on consumption that impacts the poor but not (by virtue of their disposable income) the wealthy cannot produce positive results.

It is classic Victorian-era paternalism by the middle and upper classes dressed up as public health concern about alcohol consumption. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

7 hours ago, strichener said:

Apologies, it must have been the novelty. 

Don't get used to it . . .

[StellarHibee]

7 hours ago, strichener said:

Yes there are statistics to back this up.

Where are they then? You were already provided with statistics that show the exact opposite of your BS claim.

[thisal]

11 hours ago, strichener said:

Not everyone drinks chateauxneuf-du-pape.

No but bog standard table wine is not affected by the minimum alcohol price. So your spiel about the middle classes was irrelevant.