Frosty Jack large bottle £4.50 up to £11.25 in Scotland

Do you think there will be some black market  trade going  going on over the border?That is a big mark up enough for some cross border trade.

oh!!!  I have a couple of crates of my favourite mild from a company that ships from Glasgee   !!!!!!!!!   argh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man when  stopped taking 200 bottles Carlisle to Glasgow. "Just for me and my mates officer "

Wouldn't get too cocky, now that the Supreme Court has ok'd it, England will be getting the same legislation.

republicans voted them in, not fit for government.

I'm glad you've seen sense at last lfc, but shouldn't this post be in the "TRUMP" thread?

Good news for upmarket drinkers Carlsberg Special unaffected. 4 x 440ml  £7.50  3.5 vol.acl per can

The poor Scottish people we are powerless to stop their misery and suffering under SNP dictatorship!

We don't need to see anything more, let this be a warning to any Scot thinking of voting for independence.

that's the sort of freedom that cannot be borne for long.

Another blow for those on lower incomes but a massive windfall for the big supermarkets. Very progressive from the SNP.

I had to look it up, I've never seen Frosty Jack in any shop near me and @ 7.5% that's not a brew I'd entertain personally.
Tesco's do 3 x 500ml bottles of Aspall's for a fiver and that's a decent cider.

Cameron's Tories were going to introduce the same policy until the alcohol industry began to cry about it, presumably using their paid for MPs.  Northern and Southern Ireland looking at it as well as Wales.

High strength low quality drinks will cost more.  High strength high quality won't and lower strength won't.  This isn't prohibition, it's using economics to influence behaviour.

That makes it worse.

Does it mean your scottish alkies are now going to be popping their heads out of a skip with a tulip glass full of Peroni in their hand?

"High strength low quality drinks will cost more.  High strength high quality won't and lower strength won't.  This isn't prohibition, it's using economics to influence behaviour."

This is simply untrue and unfortunately shows how much people get taken in by the SNP PR machine. The biggest selling beer in Scotland is the medium strength lager Tennants which is 4%. In no way high strength and whilst some people may call it piss water it's a medium quality product. A 440ml can is 1.8 units making the standard 12 pack 21.6 units. These currently sell for the price of about 8 pound in supermarkets. The minimum price under the new law will be 10.80.

This is a medium strength medium quality and is highest selling lager in Scotland and a 12 pack will now increase in price by over a third

Stella Artois high strength premium lager 18 cans can be bought at the moment for 14 pound. New minimum price 19.80. Again an increase in over a third in price.

The idea that this will just affect high strengths drinks is nonsense.

*high strength low quality products is nonsense.

John Mason (the fools fool) SNP MSP tweeted his delight at the court victory.
He finished his tweet with SNP stands up to big profitable businesses and wins.
Yes sure you do John but you should have added but handing even more profits to other big profitable businesses.

We saw on the local news who is a regular buyer of the cider highlighted. All that will happen is that crime will rise as dependants do what they need to do to raise the extra cash.

Coatbridge/Airdrie want to know how this affects Tonic wine i.e. Buckie.

It confuses me how when a tory chancellor stands up and gives a budget that increases the cost of wines and beer the left always scream the poor are being penalised but the lefty SNP claim this is a good measure now ?

I'm pretty sure if you get angry about this measure you almost def need to have a think about your lifestyle.

Daves lost the argument so trying to smear instead. Typical lefty.

"I'm pretty sure if you get angry about this measure you almost def need to have a think about your lifestyle."

You need to have a think about your lifestyle because the government intends to bring in a policy that puts the income of the lower classes in to the hands of mulit national companies who already makes billions in profits each year? Give yourself a shake.

You've been taken in hook line and sinker by the SNP line that this is targeted at "cheap and strong drinks" when it is nothing of the sort and now having been shown your ignorance you are trying to pretend everybody who has an issue with this is some raging alkie.

Treetop I keep repeating this - The SNP talk left but walk right.

What argument have I lost?  The policy is intended to deter the sale of cheap flavoured industrial alcohol and minimise the effect on good quality products.  It prevents supermarkets from using high strength drink as a loss leader and narrows the gap between supermarkets and pubs. 

I suppose you moaned as well when smoking was banned in public places? Scottish health is generally appalling and the SNP is committed to improving it.  They should be supported not attacked (generally by unionist types in Scotland).

The last SNP alcohol policy worked  so great as well. They banned happy hours and special offers in pubs in order to combat binge drinking which resulted in people  going to the supermarket to buy cheap booze instead before going out and then they decided that there was a problem with people going to the supermarkets to buy cheap booze instead of going to the pub so they felt they had to increase the price of supermarket booze to narrow the gap with pubs.

Actually banning smoking in pubs resulted in many clsures as people were forced into drinking ast home after buying the drink in supermarkets.
Beginning to think that the SNP has shares in Morrisons, Tesco, Sainsburys and etc.

So Sherlock you have deduced that most people in Scotland who oppose the SNP are Unionists.
Let me think this through. Unionists believe in the Union v the SNP who want to break up the Union.
I think you are on to something there Dave.

"It prevents supermarkets from using high strength drink as a loss leader and narrows the gap between supermarkets and pubs. "

I'd be interested in an example of one high industrial strength product supermarkets use as a loss leader.

dave loves this - he still hasn't provided the evidence about me mentioning one particular diaspora.  Also in this case, they certainly won't be paying any extra. In fact they won't be paying anything. ho ho

Unionists take any opportunity to mouth off about any SNP policy (which doesn't require much talent tbf).  Including policies that will improve the health of the Scottish people.

It's kind of those who can afford to drink the good stuff to look after the unintelligent folk who cannot.

oh my stalker has appeared the one that never talks about anything Islamic, he just says things like one particular diaspora.  Also in this case, they certainly won't be paying any extra. In fact they won't be paying anything. ho ho

He thinks he's very clever, as Muslims apparently don't drink, he's made a little comment about them but hasn't mentioned them. 

Isn't he clever indeed!

You can bet your bottom dollar if the tories were in power in Scotland akabula would be lauding this policy as looking after the health of the nation but as in his eyes anything the SNP do is wrong he wont.

I wouldn't worry about moisok as he will probably get himself banned soon as eventually his bile will spill over as he cant help himself.

" Including policies that will improve the health of the Scottish people."

Sure it will. We're all going to be bumping in to the Frosty Jack and Tesco value cider drinkers in the fruit and veg aisle and down the local gym when this comes in.

I would rather they stuck to the basics and looked after the NHS in Scotland which has suffered badly since the SNP were handed control.

You may have a point there akabula though I doubt you would criticize if the tories were in charge of policy.

I would support any party in Scotland rather than the SNP.
Actually I was a big fan of Jim Murhy but nowadays, thanks to Corbyn and McDonnel, I am forced to vote Tory.

I just like to make you aware of the current situation

People who have radical ideas are often castigated by mainstream/popular theories/philosophies etc,  but are proven right eventually.

hope this helps

"Supporters of ( sin taxes ) should be prepared to explain to what extent they think the aim of cajoling
people into adopting healthier lifestyles justifies forcibly reducing people’s living standards."
Dr Kristian Niemietz

Well done that whisky association though - they really tried to stop the rot, but the court has said the SNP can crack on and make poor people even poorer because the SNP have the right intentions.

The Monks down my neck of the woods are having a party tonight the filthy rich bast'rds.
Boogieing all the way from the front door to the alter of the Abbey.
Noisy feckers

Nov 15, 2017 -- 4:47PM, bongo wrote:

"Supporters of ( sin taxes ) should be prepared to explain to what extent they think the aim of cajolingpeople into adopting healthier lifestyles justifies forcibly reducing people’s living standards." Dr Kristian Niemietz Well done that whisky association though - they really tried to stop the rot, but the court has said the SNP can crack on and make poor people even poorer because the SNP have the right intentions.

being alcoholic is not an increase in people's living standards.

Either way, from what I gathered, the extra money goes to retailers. That's a really strange decision. If you want higher alcohol prices through state control, it should be in the form of tax that is only allowed to be used to fund alcohol therapies. In general though I tend to agree that higher prices and "sin taxes" aren't the ultimate tool. If you don't offer additional help for the already affected, they are not helpful.

We as a society need to stop trivialising, even celebrating, heavy alcohol consumption and do a better job at offering therapies. I could be wrong, but I'd think most of us on this thread will know at least one alcoholic personally. I know multiple ones myself.

...and that's quite sad, isn't it?

Either way, from what I gathered, the extra money goes to retailers. That's a really strange decision. If you want higher alcohol prices through state control, it should be in the form of tax that is only allowed to be used to fund alcohol therapies.

Increasing tax doesn't stop retailers absorbing the increase, hence the minimum price.  I imagine there might be a way to coordinate minimum price and tax if required, but first minimum price had to be introduced.  Some countries have state controlled monopolies for alcohol sales.

Generally in favour of the move, but unsure about a couple of things.

A 500ml can of 4% lager is now minimum £1?  I think that is too much.

The figure of '50p' minimum per unit is almost arbitrary.

We already tax alcohol in a number of ways based on type and ABV.  Why add another layer rather than combine or simplify?

Is it true that the retailers benefit from this pricing?  If so, unbelievable.

think the idea of min pricing is to circumnavigate where alcohol tax goes ,this is a cute plan to increase prices with a view to imposing a windfall tax on retailers by the Scottish government  ,think that was the initial plan and perhaps Westminster haves since  seen the opportunity to do likewise and hence there won't for the time being be an extra tax on retailers in Scotland as UK  Gov are going to follow suit ,this is how extra layers of legislative governments are exploited .Initially the talk was 150m a year windfall tax for Scotland but reckon it  could be much more ,fail to see how the figures of potential deaths prevented are calculated , people with little cash will still be able to afford cheap drink ,and as mentioned on here certain middle of the road beer will go up and go up by a fair bit ,the possible gains for Scotland in a windfall tax would have been offset by the serious mobile drinkers going south to stock up so in no doubt Westminster will follow suit ,think the SNP have been looking of a way to retain more tax from alcohol brewed in Scotland ,unless rest of UK follows suit brewers/retailers north of the border could be the biggest losers ,along with the poor punters who will have to pay ,cider market been dealt a blow IMO ,although frosty jack at 7.5% and under £4 for  a 3l bottle is perhaps just too cheap but maybe they should have imposed tougher licensing laws in the areas that needed the help ,a close look at these areas and how the problem has been cultured and allowed to go unchecked is perhaps overdue .

...and....breathe....

...and....breathe....

Relax jack  , am using old hardware and this place and it ain't very  compatible ,so easier to ignore punctuation protocols ,I do sympathise , although if your gunna be effective in attempting to highlight layout over content you only want go be pressing the reply button ONCE , otherwise it looks a tad  off.

We all know how this goes.....

Now that it's been approved, expectations will be down played - 'no magic bullet' etc.

As with the smoking ban, it will fail, but'research' will be commissioned which will distort the figures beyond all recognition to prove it's been a success.

'We can do more' they will shout! -'The next logical step' will be to raise the MUP to 60p or 70p and ever upwards accompanied by outdoor bans, advertising bans etc.etc

The puritans will never stop. Meanwhile, UK alcohol consumption is the same as it was in 1980.

Is cigarette consumption also the same as it was in 1980?

Meanwhile, UK alcohol consumption is the same as it was in 1980.

yeah but most of that was me.

It probably is actually. There probably weren't many folks eating cigarettes in the 80s either. What about smoker prevalence in 1980 compared to today though?

Is cigarette consumption also the same as it was in 1980?

No because I gave up

The smoking ban in public places has quite obviously improved health.  To say that the stats showing this are "made up" says quite a lot about the person making the claim.

You were only allowed one true vice and that is alcohol, now its being taken away from the poor as best as they can without outlawing their own consumption.

The proletariat is viewed as a commodity, somebody to provide the product that others profit from (the price above the cost to make, or in this case the work involved) and productivity has to continually advance....so Leary's mantra of 'Turn on, tune in, drop out' has to be attacked at every opportunity.

Is cigarette consumption also the same as it was in 1980?

No.

"yeah but most of that was me"

dave1357 thinks that The smoking ban in public places has quite obviously improved health

Firstly - if it's that obvious, give a link to the paper that shows this. One that has not been debunked on the excellent website http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/
Secondly - even in some fantasy universe where it had an effect, does it justify the impingement on the liberty of consenting adults to do as they wish in indoor premises.
Thirdly - are you aware that even if justified, you are making everyone else poorer because as the iea have showed, smokers, drinkers and sugar-fat eaters are saving the NHS money

yeah that's right bongo smoking is good for you, carry on with your good work, sorry I woke you up.

No answer from Dave......

It improved my health and aided me in keeping off but perhaps seeing my mother dying of lung cancer should have been enough.

Nov 17, 2017 -- 12:46PM, bongo wrote:

dave1357 thinks that The smoking ban in public places has quite obviously improved healthFirstly - if it's that obvious, give a link to the paper that shows this. One that has not been debunked on the excellent website http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/Secondly - even in some fantasy universe where it had an effect, does it justify the impingement on the liberty of consenting adults to do as they wish in indoor premises.Thirdly - are you aware that even if justified, you are making everyone else poorer because as the iea have showed, smokers, drinkers and sugar-fat eaters are saving the NHS money

yay, let's encourage people to get really ill, suffer, die young and miserable so the NHS saves some money

Do they really save the NHS itself money btw? I've seen studies in Germany about it, but in all those they didn't save our health system any money. They cause extra spending. That's the same in all studies I've read about. In some, but not all, a smoker is a net gain for society due to the tobacco sin tax he pays and him dying earlier and hence receiving less pension.

Others that take into account a loss of productivity, loss of human ressources due to mortality, an unability to work, rehabilitation etc. come to a big net loss for society.

inability to work, pardon me.

And they usually get criticised for it and don't have the audacity to try and act like said policies are "progressive".

Speaking for myself, alcohol consumption has improved my life.  I'm not a heavy drinker at all, in fact I'd say I was a light drinker, but the ability to lighten the mood and socialise with a few drinks on the odd occasion definitely improves my mental health.

The thought of a sanitised society is deeply depressing.

Comparison to the smoking ban in public is stupid. Artificially inflating prices is completely different from banning something in public. A more suitable comparison would be the the price hikes on **** by duty which has been shown it doesn't really work in reducing smoking. people just pay the higher prices. At the very least it raises money that can be spent on public health services. This farcical policy doesn't. It simply leads to a windfall for supermarkets.

I'd prefer to see positive action for health like free fruit and veg.

the veg wouldn't get eaten  -it would wither away in the fridge 

Free fruit and veg in Scotland?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btb7TVZt7QA

Actually woman get vouchers for fruit and veg during their pregnancies.
I think it continues after birth but not sure for how long.