Scots to bring in minimum price booze

[psi310398]

Driver101 said:

I can't find any drink that I would normally buy that's going to go up in price.

I suppose that's the point; this is a patronising (and likely counterproductive) measure which is aimed exclusively at the poor, not the middle classes.

Much as ever, we can be discerning and make our own decisions, but gin or beer (depending on the century) is too dangerous in the hands of the dirty, poor people who don't know their Beaujolais from their Bordeaux...

[rev-erend]

Will the UK follow ?

It would make booze cruises to the continent popular again for some.

[Hawmaws]

rev-erend said:

Will the UK follow ?

It would make booze cruises to the continent popular again for some.

My initial thought on this was that devolution didn't happen so the comment about the 'UK' was wrong.

But on reflection... how could this be enacted in rUK?

[Electronicpants]

alangla said:

.:ian:. said:

Im sure the distilleries and breweries will do their bit and increase the wholesale prices!

This is the bizarre bit - the organisation that took it to the Supreme Court was the Scotch Whisky Association! You'd have thought they'd have been glad to see their branded products achieve something closer to price parity with the Tesco Value oven cleaner that's going to be most affected by this.

Oh - someone mentioned Buckfast earlier - AIUI, this isn't affected as its retail price per unit is already significantly higher than the minimum price, there have, however, been noises about capping caffeine content in alcoholic drinks. Surprised they didn't attempt this (i.e. pick out what's essentially a single brand issue) rather than taking on most of drinks industry first.

I think their issue is that at the moment you can get a cheep bottle of Whiskey for about £12, Aldi type stuff, that cheep crap will go up to £14 according to the new rules. Mr Bells isn't going to want his better than "McTavishes special" at the same price point and will be forced to put his bottle up to £16-£17 a bottle, and so on up the chain.

The chances are people going for the branded are either going to move to the cheaper bottle or drink less, I'm sure when this started they'd have a load of market research finding this out and have reacted accordingly.

[chunder27]

Personally I think anything that prevents the over consumption of alcohol is a good thing, but I would say that as I am a non drinker really.

I would put far tougher taxes on drink and would also tax gambling if it is not taxed already as both, though not as damaging as fags are massively disruptive if they get out of control and can split up families, prevent people working, push people into crime and poverty.

So from a selfish point of view tax the bejesus out of it for me, might mean my taxes don't increase as much elsewhere!

Likely story

[psi310398]

chunder27 said:

Personally I think anything that prevents the over consumption of alcohol is a good thing, but I would say that as I am a non drinker really.

I would put far tougher taxes on drink and would also tax gambling if it is not taxed already as both, though not as damaging as fags are massively disruptive if they get out of control and can split up families, prevent people working, push people into crime and poverty.

So from a selfish point of view tax the bejesus out of it for me, might mean my taxes don't increase as much elsewhere!

Likely story

I'm not much of a drinker either but would argue with you that booze is far more damaging socially, if not medically, than fags. Targeting overconsumption by all would be a fairer way of dealing with this. I can't see the material difference (on social policy or health grounds) in my getting bladdered on two or three bottles of that cheeky little claret I found at wine merchant's rather than on meths. The cirrhosis is no prettier, nor I suspect is the family misery.

[mcbook]

Electronicpants said:

I think their issue is that at the moment you can get a cheep bottle of Whiskey for about £12, Aldi type stuff, that cheep crap will go up to £14 according to the new rules. Mr Bells isn't going to want his better than "McTavishes special" at the same price point and will be forced to put his bottle up to £16-£17 a bottle, and so on up the chain.

Interesting point but I don't see that happening. More likely, I think, will be the market evaporates for the absolute crap stuff in Scotland as it will be priced the same as Grouse, Bells etc. Some brand-name will have a blend at £14 and that will force the others to do the same, if they want to sell any product.

[moanthebairns]

Blended Scotch Whisky – up by £2.75 to £14
Glen’s Vodka – up 65p to £13.15
Frosty Jack’s – up £7.76 to £11.25
Buckfast – unchanged, £7.99
Red wine – up 96p to £4.15
20 cans of Tennent’s lager – up £5 to £18
Prosecco – unchanged, £6

Here are typical predicted price increases.

Well fk me, all thats going to happen is the alkie I know will swap his 2-3 bottles of frosty jack a day for Buckfast, Vodka or a cheeky wee Prosecco.

This could actually get much worse for many. His level of pishedness is kept in line with the fact he has to consume a large volume to get pished. He won't be spending almost an extra £8 on gut rot cider now. He'll buy buckie, or vokda (which are rocket fuel) and I can actually see it getting much worse.

There seems to have been an assumption that people enjoy drinking cheap cider and they will be discouraged by this due to the price.

[alangla]

mcbook said:

Electronicpants said:

I think their issue is that at the moment you can get a cheep bottle of Whiskey for about £12, Aldi type stuff, that cheep crap will go up to £14 according to the new rules. Mr Bells isn't going to want his better than "McTavishes special" at the same price point and will be forced to put his bottle up to £16-£17 a bottle, and so on up the chain.

Interesting point but I don't see that happening. More likely, I think, will be the market evaporates for the absolute crap stuff in Scotland as it will be priced the same as Grouse, Bells etc. Some brand-name will have a blend at £14 and that will force the others to do the same, if they want to sell any product.

This is what I reckon will happen. I also think the supermarkets will probably run regular promotions selling brand name, especially mid-price or premium brands for minimum price, e.g. exotic imported beers for the price of Tennents/Carling.

[garagewidow]

I would like to see it increased higher frankly.

but,..in line with a reduction in prices of alcohol units sold in licensed premises pubs etc seeing as they are closing at an alarming rate.hopefully this would encourage people back and drink in a more controlled environment.

in my local alehouses i'm paying 3.50 on average for a pint of standard bitter at 3.8%.i don't drink at home or touch lager or cheap cider and when I see these offers for multi packs for what it costs me a pint,...

[Driver101]

psi310398 said:

Driver101 said:

I can't find any drink that I would normally buy that's going to go up in price.

I suppose that's the point; this is a patronising (and likely counterproductive) measure which is aimed exclusively at the poor, not the middle classes.

Much as ever, we can be discerning and make our own decisions, but gin or beer (depending on the century) is too dangerous in the hands of the dirty, poor people who don't know their Beaujolais from their Bordeaux...

It sounds as if you're assuming that poor people are just buying drink with the highest ABV as possible just to get pissed.

Some people just enjoy a couple of drinks without the sole intention of getting tipsy.


I can see a few companies becoming more honest about their alcohol content. Carling were caught out for exagerrating their content. They are allowed 0.5% tolerance in their brewing, but they can control it much tighter than that.

They were selling their lager at only 3.7% strength, but selling it as 4%. 3.7% alcohol means they pay less tax. They disclose it as 3.7% to the tax man.

All within tolerance, but sneaky all the same.

Edited by Driver101 on Thursday 16th November 14:57

[psi310398]

Driver101 said:

It sounds as if you're assuming that poor people are just buying drink with the highest ABV as possible just to get pissed.

Some people just enjoy a couple of drinks without the sole intention of getting tipsy.


I can see a few companies becoming more honest about their alcohol content. Carling were caught out for exagerrating their content. They are allowed 0.5% tolerance in their brewing, but they can control it much tighter than that.

They were selling their lager at only 3.7% strength, but selling it as 4%. 3.7% alcohol means they pay less tax. They disclose it as 3.7% to the tax man.

All within tolerance, but sneaky all the same.

Edited by Driver101 on Thursday 16th November 14:57

No. I'm assuming poor people buy cheaper booze.

[Mark Benson]

Russian Joke:

Son: Dad, when the price of vodka goes up, will you drink less?

Dad: No son, you'll eat less.

[markcoznottz]

garagewidow said:

I would like to see it increased higher frankly.

but,..in line with a reduction in prices of alcohol units sold in licensed premises pubs etc seeing as they are closing at an alarming rate.hopefully this would encourage people back and drink in a more controlled environment.

in my local alehouses i'm paying 3.50 on average for a pint of standard bitter at 3.8%.i don't drink at home or touch lager or cheap cider and when I see these offers for multi packs for what it costs me a pint,...

Punitive taxes must mean that the centre left progressives hate pubs, but curiously not drinking per se, supermarket alcohol is still stupidly cheap. Maybe it's the pub culture they sneer at, or the thought of the working class sharing ideas in a group, stuff like say..,,voting for Brexit.

[Driver101]

markcoznottz said:

Punitive taxes must mean that the centre left progressives hate pubs, but curiously not drinking per se, supermarket alcohol is still stupidly cheap. Maybe it's the pub culture they sneer at, or the thought of the working class sharing ideas in a group, stuff like say..,,voting for Brexit.

Has supermarket drink actually ever beer cheaper?

Going back 20 odd years I can remember £1 per bottle was the going rate for a large case of beer. During promotions it's been as low as 50p in recent years.

[Driver101]

markcoznottz said:

Punitive taxes must mean that the centre left progressives hate pubs, but curiously not drinking per se, supermarket alcohol is still stupidly cheap. Maybe it's the pub culture they sneer at, or the thought of the working class sharing ideas in a group, stuff like say..,,voting for Brexit.

Has supermarket drink actually ever beer cheaper?

Going back 20 odd years I can remember £1 per bottle was the going rate for a large case of mainstream beer. During promotions it's been as low as 50p in recent years.

[rev-erend]

Driver101 said:

markcoznottz said:

Punitive taxes must mean that the centre left progressives hate pubs, but curiously not drinking per se, supermarket alcohol is still stupidly cheap. Maybe it's the pub culture they sneer at, or the thought of the working class sharing ideas in a group, stuff like say..,,voting for Brexit.

Has supermarket drink actually ever beer cheaper?

Going back 20 odd years I can remember £1 per bottle was the going rate for a large case of beer. During promotions it's been as low as 50p in recent years.

I worked at a brewery for a short while and had a trade discount but was warned that I should check the local supermarkets were not selling it cheaper. They often used to sell it cheaper than they bought it for as a loss leader. I personally found that practice very unfair as it probably was soley responsible for sending off licences out of business.

[ZedLeg]

There hasn't half been some pish talked in this thread.

I'm Scottish, I like a drink and I'm for minimum pricing.

This will barely affect the price of most booze. Only the cheapest, most destructive ste will see a big jump and that's good as far as I'm concerned.

[Mark Benson]

ZedLeg said:

There hasn't half been some pish talked in this thread.

I'm Scottish, I like a drink and I'm for minimum pricing.

This will barely affect the price of most booze. Only the cheapest, most destructive ste will see a big jump and that's good as far as I'm concerned.

Do you think:

a) All the people who bought SuperJumboPishead Cider will now simply pay the extra or mend their ways?

or

b) Bootleg booze will now be as common as bootleg cigarettes and put profits and people's safety in the hands of criminals?

[dcb]

markcoznottz said:

supermarket alcohol is still stupidly cheap.

Not compared to the rest of Europe it isn't. For example, Belgian prices are cheaper

http://www.realtobacco.be/en/products/wines-beers

24 cans of 500 ml 5% beer for about £12 looks like about 50p a can to me.
Perfectly drinkable Eurolager. Looks like Stella. Bargain.

German prices even less. 30 eurocents a can in some places, IIRC.
Thirty years ago, Czech supermarket lager was running about 2p a can ...