The Very Meh Humza Yousaf Thread.

[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. 

[strichener]

50 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

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

I think you need to go back and read the Scottish Government position in 2018 to understand why my claim isn't BS and why you have now made a c**t of yourself for three replies in a row.

I'll even help you out.

Quote

The policy aim of minimum pricing is to reduce alcohol-related harm by acting in two ways: to reduce, in a targeted way, the consumption of alcohol by consumers whose consumption is hazardous or harmful, and also to reduce the overall population level of consumption of alcohol.

If you look at harmful consumption of alcohol, it reduced in the 15 years before MUP.  It has not accelerated in the 4 years of data since.  If you want the stats then they are freely available to you.

Also the article published earlier as evidence was based on the implementation date to the end of 2020.  I'll leave you to work out why that is.

Edited May 11, 2023 by strichener

[StellarHibee]

18 hours ago, strichener said:

I think you need to go back and read the Scottish Government position in 2018 to understand why my claim isn't BS and why you have now made a c**t of yourself for three replies in a row.

I'll even help you out.

If you look at harmful consumption of alcohol, it reduced in the 15 years before MUP.  It has not accelerated in the 4 years of data since.  If you want the stats then they are freely available to you.

Also the article published earlier as evidence was based on the implementation date to the end of 2020.  I'll leave you to work out why that is.

Nope. Provide the stats yourself. If you're going to make a questionable argument, be prepared to provide the data.

[ICTChris]

Not sure if this is the right thread but there’s an interview with a former Yes Scotland worker in the Herald where he’s pretty scathing about the SNP.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23520654.ex-yes-scotland-director-snp-trashed-us---lost-2014/
 

Had to laugh at his alternative suggestion for a leader of the Yes campaign over Salmond - Elaine C Smith!

[Leith Green]

2 hours ago, ICTChris said:

Not sure if this is the right thread but there’s an interview with a former Yes Scotland worker in the Herald where he’s pretty scathing about the SNP.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23520654.ex-yes-scotland-director-snp-trashed-us---lost-2014/
 

Had to laugh at his alternative suggestion for a leader of the Yes campaign over Salmond - Elaine C Smith!

Heavy "jilted at the alter" vibes with that interview. 

 

[strichener]

On 12/05/2023 at 16:03, StellarHibee said:

Nope. Provide the stats yourself. If you're going to make a questionable argument, be prepared to provide the data.

It's not questionable, from the BMJ

Quote

There is no clear evidence that the introduction of minimum unit pricing (MUP) of alcohol in Scotland has led the heaviest drinkers to change their behaviour, research has found.

If you can't be arsed educating yourself then that's on you I'm afraid.

Edited May 15, 2023 by strichener

[Suspect Device]

 

Not exactly off to a good start in the ratings. 

[ScotiaNostra]

I havent seen him mentioned in the news much lately, though might be that I have just missed it

[renton]

46 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

 

Not exactly off to a good start in the ratings. 

Not exactly had a great start in terms of how he gets to present himself (no chance to define himself outside of an embattled party and it's previous leadership - having to constantly give no comment to the media). He might get a chance at a reset dependent upon the outcome of the police investigation (and dependent on how that goes). 

Just as possible is that Sunak will hang on to the last possible second, meaning the SNP could dump him late in the year and attempt a hard reboot.

Edited May 24, 2023 by renton

[welshbairn]

2 hours ago, Suspect Device said:

 

Not exactly off to a good start in the ratings. 

I'd say that was pretty steady given the catastrophic start to his leadership. 

[Antlion]

3 hours ago, Suspect Device said:

 

Not exactly off to a good start in the ratings. 

I see STV is right behind the confidence trick that Sarwar, Cole-Hamilton, and Ross are “party leaders”. How they continue to get away with this - and why we let them get away with it - I don’t know.

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

I wonder how many of those thousand people would have the slightest clue who Cole-Hamilton even is?

[orfc]

57 minutes ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

I wonder how many of those thousand people would have the slightest clue who Cole-Hamilton even is?

580 going by the graphic

[BFTD]

2 hours ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

I wonder how many of those thousand people would have the slightest clue who Cole-Hamilton even is?

A vanishingly small number.

I remember some consternation in the press during the Eighties because of a survey that exposed how few people knew who the members of Thatcher's cabinet were. People like Heseltine were pretty well known, but most folk didn't know or give a f**k beyond the small handful who got their own sketches on Spitting Image. A common reaction to John Major becoming Prime Minister was, "who?"

Then picture how unimportant and replaceable most MPs seem now, and consider that even fewer people care about MSPs. Bear in mind you're talking about the branch leader of...are the Lib Dems the fifth or sixth party in Scotland these days? Plus, he can't even afford oversized props in a desperate bid for attention, like Oor Wullie.

Frankly, he probably turns up at the village hall for surgeries and is asked to wait to see the MSP like everyone else.

[ScotiaNostra]

I caught a bit of Humza speaking on the radio today and hes a numpty really is I guess the politest way to say it.