tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post3177547515446322107..comments2024-03-28T07:16:39.621+00:00Comments on Lallands Peat Worrier: Alcohol, uncertainty & 45 pence...Lallands Peat Worrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-67303638526843869562010-09-08T08:31:51.552+01:002010-09-08T08:31:51.552+01:00Ha! Touché, Indy.Ha! Touché, Indy.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-24706071930962232652010-09-07T14:09:36.700+01:002010-09-07T14:09:36.700+01:00I don't think it's the case that the SNP h...I don't think it's the case that the SNP has been successful in chasing support from the medical profession/police etc. I think it's the other way around.<br /><br />Frankly I don't think any political party has ever sat down and thought hey, let's put the price of drink up - that'll win votes. It's not exactly populist policy-making! Almost everyone drinks after all, to varying degrees.<br /><br />No, I think the SNP Government is acting quite genuinely out of concern for public health. And the statistics are frightening.Indyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383904151475839441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-86668384228987068792010-09-07T13:19:32.645+01:002010-09-07T13:19:32.645+01:00There was an interesting shift in how this policy ...There was an interesting shift in how this policy was presented, some months back when it was moved from MacAskill's justice purview to Sturgeon's health-based portfolio. As you note, in many ways attempts to garner the support of authoritative figures has been notably successful. Certainly, if Labour vote this policy down, it will be much more difficult for them to explain away than an essentially normative case made by the justice brief. I agree with voiceofourown's point - I'm mostly just owning up to my own ambivalences. Like Subrosa, I think that would have been more helpful if the government had owned up to its own uncertainties and emphasised the experimental quality of this policy from the outset. Unlike Subrosa, however, I sympathise with your analysis there Indy. There seems no harm in giving the policy a try.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-73408756643549419062010-09-06T21:47:01.050+01:002010-09-06T21:47:01.050+01:00All actions have incalculable consequences, sendin...All actions have incalculable consequences, sending out ripples way beyond our vision. It's why JS Mills utilitarian moral philosophy is, ironically, without utility. We can never fathom the greater good of the people.<br />But I'll never shrink from waving a finger at a road hog for fear of the effect on inter-planetary gravitation. <br />Confident people (and confident nations) take risks - the alternative is stagnation.voiceofourownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09821703633244094283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-55129958615959768912010-09-06T17:22:13.537+01:002010-09-06T17:22:13.537+01:00I think it is a complex issue and of course nothin...I think it is a complex issue and of course nothing is certain.<br /><br />To me, it seems a logical policy, I voted for it and as far as I am concerned we have absolutely nothing to lose by trying it. If it has no effect we can re-visit it. I don't accept arguments that it is an attack on the poor. In fact the poor suffer disproportionately from the effects of alcohol abuse so if the policy reduces the amount of white lightening people get through then good. <br /><br />But what is more to the point (in my view) is that we should not accept the argument that somehow putting the price of drink up is unfair or a violation of peoples' rights. Alcohol is not one of life's necessities. It's not like bread or milk or water and we should not treat it in the same way.<br /><br />What really swings it for me is the fact that the entire medical profession, the police, social work leaders and so on are lobbying hard to get politicians to support minimum pricing.<br /><br />That is highly unusual. Indeed to have such an alliance of public service professionals lobbying for one particular policy is perhaps unprecedented. Clearly they have been knocking at an open door with the SNP but I am surprised that Labour has been so obstructive. After all, if they are elected in 2011 (as they claim they expect to be) they will have to deal with the problem and rejecting the advice of the most senior experts in the field seems rash. <br /><br />I am not arguing that ministers must always accept the advice of experts incidentally - but when they reject it I think they should have a good reason for doing so.Indyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383904151475839441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-26407769665284643712010-09-06T12:58:21.992+01:002010-09-06T12:58:21.992+01:00I only heard about the 'sunset clause' thi...I only heard about the 'sunset clause' this weekend. Seems rather an opt-out after all the propaganda regarding reports and the backers of this increase.<br /><br />Unfortunately, as you say, neither the university study or the Canadian one can give any true statistics regarding hiking the price of alcohol, yet the SNP are desperate to make us believe the reports are the result of years of scrutiny of price rises. That's where they're erred. Trying to introduce a policy based on hypothetical theories results in ridicule at times. <br /><br />They should leave this idea well alone, start ensuring what current laws we do have are enforced and forget about a legacy. The way they've governed Scotland in the past three years is legacy enough as they've done rather well.subrosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151702590329788260noreply@blogger.com