Independence Day 2: Resturgeonce

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Independence Day 2: Resturgeonce

Which Thread Title shall we name this new thread? This poll is closed.
Independence Day 2: Resturgeonce	44	21.36%
ScotPol - Unclustering this gently caress	19	9.22%
Trainspotting 2: Independence is my heroin	9	4.37%
Indyref II: Boris hosed a Dead Country	14	6.80%
ScotPol: Wings over Bullshit	8	3.88%
Independence 2: Cameron Lied, UK Died	24	11.65%
Scotpol IV: I Vow To Flee My Country	14	6.80%
ScotPol - A twice in a generation thread	17	8.25%
ScotPol - Where Everything's hosed Up and the Referendums Don't Matter	15	7.28%
ScotPol Thread: Dependence Referendum Incoming	2	0.97%
Indyref II: The Scottish Insturgeoncy	10	4.85%
ScotPol Thread: Act of European Union	5	2.43%
ScotPol - Like Game of Thrones only we wish we would all die	25	12.14%
Total:	206 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

I do wonder what you would have done differently in Sturgeon's position, pissflaps.

Nicola is taking the correct approach, exhausting all options in order to build a long-term case for independence. If she didn't go to the EU then she would have been (rightly) harangued by the press for not trying to secure a deal within the UK. As it stands, she is repeatedly being cited as one of the only politicians in the UK that seems to know what they are doing.

# ¿ Jun 29, 2016 17:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 19:00

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

What would it be then?

Would you have Sturgeon go immediately for a second referendum, despite the UK parliament being in chaos with an outgoing PM content to toss every issue onto his successor?

Until there is a new Prime Minister in place and possibly even a General Election, there is not a ghost of a chance that Sturgeon will get the Section 30 order she needs in order to hold another referendum. So why not look useful in the meantime and look like you are standing up for Scottish interests in the EU? it might all be political pageantry but it serves to convey an image of Sturgeon as a world leader and Scotland as an emerging state.

# ¿ Jun 29, 2016 18:08

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

So you would have tried to hold a referendum on Saturday, got it.

# ¿ Jun 29, 2016 18:12

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

It's interesting too because this result can also point to a wider problem with with the Scottish legal system. Given that NP passed the scrutiny of every Scottish court before finally being struck down by the UK Supreme Court. If so, it points to big flaws with legal advice within the Scottish Government, something that has to be examined and rectified, particularly if we vote for independence since I doubt the EU courts will be as forgiving on flawed legislation (See. Minimum Pricing).

# ¿ Jul 28, 2016 15:46

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Yeah, Minimum pricing probably wasn't the most comparable example, I just hated that ruling so drat much that it immediately sprung to mind :v:

# ¿ Jul 28, 2016 16:18

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Looks like Indyref 2 is dead for the time being. Tomorrows Herald has YouGov showing No at 53% and Yes at 47%. Turns out the SNP's caution was justified.

Brexit here we come :smith:

EDIT: And for those who think that EU membership will affect anything. The poll also found that 55% of Scots would prefer to remain in the UK outside of the EU, as opposed to the other way round.

Leggsy fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jul 30, 2016

# ¿ Jul 30, 2016 01:34

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

The whole David Torrance thing is so weird because I've read his biographies of Salmond and Sturgeon and found them to be really well researched and even handed, barring a few small qualms (too much Euan McColm). It just seems like when he's writing columns he gets all clickbaity and huffy about the SNP and then he can't help himself but to write stupid poo poo.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2016 16:08

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

The rise and continued fall of Natalie McGarry would make a good in depth article at some point. By all accounts she was someone who wasn't particularly bright but was an expert at being in all the right places at the right times. Especially as part of WFI where she managed to leverage herself as one of the key figureheads behind its success.

She's like an inept Frank Underwood and now the house of cards is crashing down around her.

Hopefully she'll just do the noble thing and resign so the SNP can put someone better in the seat (Yes, I'm being presumptuous but lol if you think Labour stand a chance in a by-election).

# ¿ Sep 27, 2016 23:08

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

In some good news, minimum pricing is finally on track to being implemented.

As someone who has been a massive proponent of minimum pricing, i'm over the moon. Although it's a disgrace that it's taken this long to finally be delivered.

# ¿ Oct 21, 2016 13:53

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

God forbid we do anything that might actually reduce consumption, lest it affect middle-class student drinkers.

EDIT: I'd like to see what policy you lot would put forward as an alternative that is equally supported by statistical and case evidence. Or are we going to fall back on the old chestnut of "education", which works fine as a buzzword but does gently caress-all to actually help people.

Leggsy fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Oct 21, 2016

# ¿ Oct 21, 2016 16:57

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Coohoolin posted:

Minimum pricing always strikes me as being regressive in the same kind of way VAT is.

It's regressive in the sense that rich people will benefit less from the policy, I guess.

Extreme0 posted:

Are you calling me a middle-class student?

More of a general observation that those opposed to minimum pricing tend to be so out of self-interest. I've yet to meet a teetotaler who doesn't think it's a great policy.

Extreme0 posted:

My policy is to reduce poverty.

Reducing policy can be effective but it's obviously very costly and a lot of the powers are outside of the hands of the Scottish Government. Minimum Pricing costs almost nothing to implement and has found by many experts to be an effective means of reducing consumption and improving health.

You sneer at the SNP w.r.t. reform but they were the ones championing this policy in 2007 while the rest of the Scottish Parliament were too afraid to do anything meaningful to tackle Scotland's alcohol crisis (and I believe it is a crisis). It was only in 2011 when they had the majority that the other parties magically changed their minds.

# ¿ Oct 21, 2016 17:54

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Nice pivot from Minimum Pricing. But I'm actually not going to disagree with you w.r.t the Council Tax. I think the SNP have been shamefully craven on that issue which is why i'm hoping they re-examine it in the upcoming budget. Hopefully some nudging from the Greens might lead to a better settlement on that front.

I know i'm defensive of the SNP, maybe too much so, but I acknowledge that they aren't perfect. However, I think it's worth giving them credit when it's due when they bring forward proposals that can actually help people, like Minimum Pricing. Especially when the alternatives seem to be a Labour party that is devoid of ideas and talent and the loving Tories.

# ¿ Oct 21, 2016 18:21

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

forkboy84 posted:

It's a lovely policy because instead of being a tax which could see money going towards treatment centres to help people with alcohol problems it just means that poor folk will spend a larger proportion of their wage on bevvy and supermarkets will make more profit. That's hosed. I'd accept it as a worthwhile attempt to treat a social ill. Put the money towards the health service & social care, giving it to Billy Tesco & Bobby Walmart is a terrible policy though.

Now I don't drink too often, but when I do, I binge drink horribly. And unless I'm particularly flush at that moment it's far more likely I'll buy a dirt cheap bottle of Glen's gut-rot vodka rather than a bottle of Laphroaig. Of course it's easy for tee-totallers to back a law that doesn't impact them. But more than "middle class students" drink for fucksake, or this wouldn't be an issue in the first place. What an utterly asinine point.

On top of that, I'm just not sure it'll make a huge dent into how much people drink. Just into their wallet. It's a very SNP policy, more about posture than the actual outcome, and a wee bit old-fashioned paternalistic too. Daddy (or in this case Mummy) knows best.

A tax wouldn't work as well, since supermarkets could simply absorb the duty rise and keep alcohol at the same dirt-cheap rate. Minimum Pricing would, by law, make it impossible for alcohol to be sold at less than 50p per unit. This is also why supermarkets would make a loss from Minimum Pricing, as they currently use cheap booze as a loss leader. A rise in price would actually hurt supermarkets as they would lose out in other areas.

On the point of reducing consumption, there's a wealth of literature out there that shows a direct link between price and consumption. The most often cited is the body of work by the University of Sheffield who have done a ton of work modelling a bunch of different factors which affect consumption.

EDIT: I finally loving found it, seconds after I posted. Here's a great effortpost from ages back by Iohannes which sets out the basic arguments in favour of Minimum Pricing. Archives are needed but it's a great read: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3483266&pagenumber=15#post403615995

Leggsy fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Oct 21, 2016

# ¿ Oct 21, 2016 18:42

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Extreme0 posted:

Or you could, I don't know. Copy and paste the quote?

Wasn't as simple a copy-paste job as you might think. Basically had to reformat the whole thing (this is the part where someone tells me there's a way to quote from archives and I just wasted my time).

Iohannes posted:

So, you've just read about the plan of Alex Salmond/Nicola Sturgeon/David Cameron (delete as appropriate) to introduce minimum pricing on alcohol and you've got your knickers in a twist of righteous anger about the obvious middle-class conspiracy to rob you of your precious life giving toxic, dependence inducing teratogenic and carcinogenic drug, alcohol.

STOP! Yes, you, stop right there!

You see, we've been here before. Possibly not you and me, but this thread. Back in 2009; and 2010; and 2011. Back when the thread and this discussion was not even raoul moatly funny.

The veterans of this argument are tired of it, those of us in favour of it are tired of pointing evidence and facts to back up our position; and we're also tired of those who oppose it calling us liberals, fascists, and snobs who hate poor people. It's tiresome and gets us nowhere. Those who can be persuaded already have been and those who can't be persuaded can gently caress off.

This post is for those who haven't made their minds up.

What is minimum pricing?
A very good question. I'll begin by saying what it isn't. It isn't a way for the middle classes to gently caress over poor people; in fact minimum pricing will disproportionately benefit (in terms of health) people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Minimum pricing is the idea that ethanol, the alcohol in alcoholic drinks that make them alcoholic, should have a unit price. In Scotland the SNP want that price to be 50p per unit, and David Cameron wants it to be 40p per unit.

What's a unit and how does that factor with ABV and proof?
In the UK (a ROI unit is different) a unit of alcohol is 10ml of pure ethanol. So a litre (1,000 ml) of wine with an ABV (alcohol by volume) of 10% is 10% alcohol and thus has 100ml of pure ethanol in it, diluted by the rest of the wine. It thus has 10 units. A 75cl (750ml) bottle of vodka that is 40% alcohol has 300ml of pure ethanol in it and thus has 30 units.

Proof is no longer used in the UK. Historically it's a Royal Navy term to describe the strenght of a drink (specifically rum). If the rum was 100 proof it had sufficient alcohol in it that when poured on gunpowder it did not stop the gunpowder igniting. If it did it was termed "under-proof" because it did not prove sufficiently strong. If you're interested the calculation is 7/4 * ABV. So 100 proof has an ABV of about 57.14% and 40% ABV vodka is 70 proof.

Proof has no bearing on this issue, while ABV and units do. Additionally, for the calculations in this post I shall be using 50p per unit (this preferred by most medical authorities).

How is minimum pricing different to taxes?
It's very different, most specifically in how it affects price.

A consumption tax adds to the cost of something. For example, VAT which is currently at 20%. This adds 20% of the price of a good onto the price paid at the till by the consumer. So if something is �3, a consumer pays �3.60 of which 60p goes not to the shop but to the treasury. Current alcohol taxes are (as of 28 March 2011) quite complicated but if you want to read them then they're here at HMRC

We can work out how much tax should be added to spirits easily if we know the ABV. The calculation for spirits is as follows:
code:
Tax payable = (Tax rate * (ABV/100)) * (size in ml / 1000)
For 70cl of 37.5% vodka the tax payabe is �6.70. "But wait!" I hear you cry. "Surely that can't be. I can buy a bottle of vodka of that size and that strength from Asda for �8.72. Surely the base price of 70cl of vodka can't be �2.02!?"

Ah-ha! You've come to the core reason why alcohol taxes do not necessarily raise prices. Alcohol can be used as a loss leader. For instance, Asda could lose money on the sale of every bottle of vodka but make it back on the sale of crisps or nuts or anything. In other words, the marginal cost in tax of an item doesn't need to be passed to the purchaser. It usually is, in the case of VAT, but doesn't need to be.

Not so with minimum pricing. That vodka has 26.3 units in it. At 50p per unit it must cost �13.15. It would be illegal for it to be sold for any less. �7.18 of that would still be payable in tax, but the vodka could no longer be sold as a loss leader. Its increase in price would discourage purchase in a way that an increase in tax would not because it could not be absorbed by the seller. In actuality it isn't the supermarkets that absorb the tax increases, it's the drinks manufacturers.

So you want booze to be more expensive?
Basically yes. But only certain booze. Let's be clear, the majority of alcoholic drinks would be unaffected by this law. The price of a pint in a pub won't go up. This is not a price added onto the tax payable or the basic price, it is a price floor under which the price could not sink. If the price of the drink is already above the minimum price, it won't go up any further because the basic principle of the ethanol content costing 50p per 10ml would already be met

To give some examples, again from Asda
code:
                                                                                Min Price
Drink                           Bottle Size    ABV     *Units*     Shop Price     (50p)
----------------------          -----------   ------   -------    ------------  -------- 
Own brand cheap vodka            700 ml        37.5%    26.3         �8.72       �13.15
Smirnoff                         700 ml        37.5%    26.3         �12.00      �13.15
Famous Grouse                    700 ml        40%      28.0         �15.97      �14.00
Highland Park 12yr Scotch        700 ml        40%      28.0         �24.97      �14.00                   
Cheapest white wine              750 ml        8%       6            �2.98       �3.00
Wine of Australia White wine     750 ml        12.5%    9.4          �3.68       �4.69
Carlsberg (4 440ml cans)         1760 ml       3.8%     6.7          �3.98       �3.34
Fosters (20 440ml cans)          8800 ml       4%       35.2         �15.98      �17.60
Strongbow Cider                  2000 ml       5.3%     10.6         �3.22       �5.30
Cheapest Cider+                  2000 ml       4.2%     8.4          �1.53       �4.20

* not on sale
+ Hawksridge 
As you can most of the changes of premium or named brands are not significant. The crate of Fosters would cost �1.62, a rise of 10%. The bottle of Smirnoff would cost �1.15 more, again about a 10% rise. The biggest rises will be on spirits, stronger wines and cheap cider. To give a comparison, these artisan ciders available from the Bristol Cider Shop won't be affected:
code:
                                                                                Min Price
Cider                           Bottle Size    ABV     *Units*     Shop Price    (50p)
----------------------          -----------   ------   -------    ------------  -------- 
Ross on Wye Alpaca Dry           500 ml        5.5%     2.75         �2.70       �1.38
Gwatkin Kingston Black           500 ml        7.5%     3.75         �2.39       �1.88
Newtons Autumn Harvest Perry     1000 ml       5.3%     5.3          �4.40       �2.65 

Newtons Dabinett                 10l           6.2%     62           �30.00      �31.00
Newtons Dabinett                 20l           6.2%     124          �50.00      �62.00
Hecks Blakeney Red Perry         10l           6%       60           �35.00      �30.00
Hecks Blakeney Red Perry         20l           6%       120          �60.00      �60.00
As you can see, it's only when you start to buy massive quantities (20l is about 35 pints) that you start to see large differences.

Minimum pricing is an effective way of ensuring that the price of ethanol is not absorbed as a loss leader (as a tax can be) and it sets a price floor for the price of the ethanol in a drink.

Surely an increase in price would hit poorer people harder than richer people?
Possibly. It depends upon proportion of disposable income spent on alcohol. For instance a British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL) study has shown that actually professional groups drink more than poorer groups but, and here's the important bit, the health of poorer groups are more effected by alcohol.

quote:
BASL pointed out that alcohol-related ill health and mortality was very strongly linked to socio-economic status, with the most deprived experiencing between a three and five fold increase in death rates (health statistics quarterly 33) compared to the most privileged. For any level of drinking, lower income groups suffer more. The organisation argued that given the strong link with socio-economic status, one would predict that changes in the affordability of alcohol over time would have had the most impact on death rates in the poorer sections of society, which is what happened to liver death rates between 1991 and 2001. We know that professional groups drink more than lower income groups but, astonishingly, as the figure below shows, lower income groups suffer far more from liver disease. In the 1990s as price fell and consumption increased, liver disease increased among more deprived social groups but fell among the 'higher' social classes. Alcohol duty increases can therefore be predicted to reduce mortality in those lower socio-economic groups most at risk.

Why do we need it?
Here I bow to greater minds and point you to the following peer research:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...327795jra0402_9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1939047/
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1989-29773-001
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...09.02721.x/full
http://www.nber.org/papers/w1852
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...0058-X/fulltext
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/7934053
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...tomisedMessage=
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...749379703002009

In particular, however, I would like to quote this Parliamentary report, which reiterates much of what I have said above:

quote:
MINIMUM PRICING

309. Minimum pricing has recently had a number of powerful supporters including the CMO. While much of the alcohol industry and most supermarkets were against, there was some support for minimum pricing from Tesco, Molson Coors (makers of Carling lager) and CAMRA.

310. The main arguments for preferring minimum pricing to rises in duty are:

Supermarkets will not pass on the full rises in duty to customers; they will get the drinks industry to absorb them; in contrast, this could not happen with minimum prices. As a result, supermarket and other off-licence sales would be much more affected than pub sales; thus minimum pricing could help traditional pubs.

Minimum prices would be particularly effective in raising the price of the cheap alcohol; this would be particularly effective in reducing consumption by heavy drinkers in low income groups and young binge drinkers

Minimum pricing would encourage people to buy weaker alcohol.

311. We have seen that supermarkets aggressively promote alcohol to attract customers; supermarkets even sell alcohol below the cost of the duty; thus raising the duty would not necessarily lead to higher prices.

312. Traditional pubs have lost custom for years. Rises in duty hit them; minimum prices would not since most pubs sell alcohol at a higher price than the any minimum price which has been proposed. For this reason CAMRA supports minimum pricing. Mr Benner, the Chief Executive of the organisation, told us:

"I think the price ratio at the moment is about five to one (ie the ratio of the off-sale to the on-sale price). If a minimum price of around 40 pence was introduced, that would make the ratio about three to one. Therefore, I think that is enough for there to be a shift in consumption towards drinking in community pubs.[297]"

313. While most pubs would benefit, some pubs and clubs, such as those which offer 'Happy Hours' and special promotions, would be affected. The Sheffield study found that the greatest impact on crime and accident prevention would be achieved through reducing the consumption of 18-24 year old binge drinkers, by raising the cost of cheap drinks in pubs and clubs and by reducing off-licence sales which encourage pre-loading. Off-licence sales can be very cheap with alcohol being sold for as little as 15 p per unit in some outlets.

314. BASL pointed out that alcohol-related ill health and mortality was very strongly linked to socio-economic status, with the most deprived experiencing between a three and five fold increase in death rates (health statistics quarterly 33) compared to the most privileged. For any level of drinking, lower income groups suffer more. The organisation argued that given the strong link with socio-economic status, one would predict that changes in the affordability of alcohol over time would have had the most impact on death rates in the poorer sections of society, which is what happened to liver death rates between 1991 and 2001. We know that professional groups drink more than lower income groups but, astonishingly, as the figure below shows, lower income groups suffer far more from liver disease. In the 1990s as price fell and consumption increased, liver disease increased among more deprived social groups but fell among the 'higher' social classes. Alcohol duty increases can therefore be predicted to reduce mortality in those lower socio-economic groups most at risk.

Figure 18: Changes in age standardised liver mortality rates (deaths / million) according to socio-economic status

Age standardised alcohol mortality rates according to social class for 1991 -3 (1) when socio-economic status was assessed by social class, and again for 2001-3 (Health Statistics Quarterly no 38) by which time socio-economic status was assessed by NS-SEC groupings�hence the different x axes in the graph.

315. According to the Sheffield study, a minimum price of 50p per unit would save over 3,000 lives per year,[298] a minimum price of 40p, 1,100 lives.

316. Minimum pricing would encourage people to buy weaker alcohol; for example, at a minimum price of 40p a 70cl bottle of 10% abv wine could sell for �2.80, of 12% wine for about. �3.40 (8.4 units), of 15% wine, about .�4.20p.

317. Opponents of minimum pricing argue that it would be illegal under EU competition law. The Scottish Government, which has examined this issue thoroughly, strongly disagrees and EU Competition Law does provide for a public health exemption. This exemption has been successfully used by the French Government to ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship in certain circumstances, winning a number of cases in the ECJ which were brought by the alcohol industry.

318. The DH memorandum to this inquiry stated that the Government had made no decision about minimum pricing. However, when the CMO's report which advocated minimum pricing was leaked, a Government representative rejected minimum pricing.

But the Brits have always drunk too much?
Really. That's not actually based in historical fact. Sorry.

quote:
Like the myth that the English have always been drunk, the contrast between English drunkenness and civilised Mediterranean habits may also be something of a myth

quote:
While the wine drinking countries of Southern Europe always had historically very high levels of liver deaths from alcohol related cirrhosis, deaths in these countries have been dropping whereas UK deaths are still rising inexorably. The UK finally overtook Spain, Italy and France for liver deaths in 2004.

quote:
The fact that alcohol has been enjoyed by humans since the dawn of civilization has tended to obscure the fact that it is also a toxic, dependence inducing teratogenic and carcinogenic drug to which more than three million people in the UK are addicted. The ill effects of alcohol misuse affect the young and middle aged. For men aged between 16 and 55 between 10% and 27% of deaths are alcohol related, for women the figures are 6% and 15%.

quote:
(T)he 18th-Century gin craze was linked to the government's encouragement of gin production and restriction of brandy imports; the rise in consumption in the 19th Century was associated with rising living standards.

quote:
Measures included shorter opening hours, higher duties on beer, and significant reductions in both the production and strength of beer. The amount of beer consumed in 1918 was nearly half of the pre-war total, despite rising incomes, and arrests for drunkenness in England and Wales fell from 190,000 to 29,000 between 1913 and 1918.

quote:
"It is not inevitable that per capita alcohol consumption should be almost three times higher than it was in the middle of the 20th Century or that liver disease should continue to rise. Nor is it inevitable that at night town centres should be awash with drunks, vomit and disorder. These changes have been fuelled by cheap booze, a liberal licensing regime and massive marketing budgets.
.txt

Thank you, and good night.

I did notice a few of the research links are broken. Once I get more time i'll track them down and update the links. This is also 100% credit to Iohannes, all I did was reformat the post.

Leggsy fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Oct 24, 2016

# ¿ Oct 24, 2016 15:01

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

OwlFancier posted:

Minimum pricing sounds like a roundabout way of saying "poor people can't be trusted with alcohol"

"The NHS sounds like a roundabout way of saying "poor people can't be trusted to choose the right healthcare provider"".

Opinions differ on this but I believe the state has a duty to provide for the health and welfare of it's citizens. It's not like Minimum Pricing is a wild, unproven policy. It's been researched, it's been trialled in other countries to great success. Alcohol charities such as Alcohol Focus Scotland support it overwhelmingly. It's about as close to a slam-dunk of a policy as you can get, which is why it was approved unanimously by the Scottish Parliament (except Labour who were still on their kick of abstaining everything of substance).

EDIT: As for the next two posts, Minimum Pricing will not make drinking "untenably expensive", refer to the chart in Iohanne's post. And there's also no policy of banning alcohol. The SNP are not a prohibitionist party.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2016 01:29

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

You're right, healthcare is a necessity, alcohol isn't.

Yes, the policy is aimed at reducing alcohol consumption, that's the stated aim, but I don't see how it is excessively prohibitory to even poor drinkers. By a quick calculation someone can still afford the weekly unit limit for alcohol for just �10.50, hardly prohibitively expensive. And if they drink more than that then maybe it would be good for them to start considering that their relationship with alcohol isn't quite healthy.

EDIT: The unit limit is actually 14, so it's even cheaper than I previously thought.

Leggsy fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Oct 26, 2016

# ¿ Oct 26, 2016 01:46

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

On your first point I can only offer anecdotal evidence. In cases I've seen it can sometimes take just one week of having to make the choice between eating and buying another cheap bottle of vodka to open someone's eyes. Minimum Pricing would simply bring those people to that conclusion that much quicker.

On your second point, you seem to keep casting doubt on the benefits of Minimum Pricing as if they haven't been proven. Look at any of the case studies, such as in British Columbia where there was a demonstrable drop in consumption with a much more lenient policy. Or the library of evidence from the University of Sheffield's modelling which shows that if the policy were implemented UK wide it would save "hundreds of lives"(624 to be exact).

EDIT: On self-harm, one of the guidelines used in self-harm and suicide prevention is actually to reduce access to implements from which an individual uses to harm themselves. Obviously the stakes involved in that are much higher so it's not the best comparison.

I'm not saying Minimum Pricing is the silver bullet which will end alcohol abuse forever. Indeed, when it was first proposed it was part of a wider range of alcohol reforms which were also aimed at reducing abuse. It's simply one policy that has been shown to work as part of a wider alcohol strategy that aims to reduce consumption.

Leggsy fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Oct 26, 2016

# ¿ Oct 26, 2016 02:08

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Once again I can't speak for any one case, I can only point to the evidence which shows that Minimum Pricing reduces overall consumption, which can only be a good thing. However, the fact that people are able to drink double the weekly limit in one night with it being treated like a normal thing is surely a sign that our society has become far too accepting of alcohol abuse as a norm, is it not? Look at the chart in the megapost, the recent overdrive of drinking has only occurred in the past half-century or so. Which means that it's not impossible for the trend to be reversed with the right policy approach.

On your second point, Supermarkets like to use cheap alcohol as a loss-leader. They won't want to raise prices since it would harm other areas of their business, which is why the main opponents of Minimum Pricing came from the alcohol industry.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2016 02:20

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Which "cheaper drinks" would one switch to under a 50p Minimum Unit Price?

Also, that still doesn't refute the evidence that shows Minimum Pricing reducing consumption.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2016 03:10

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

They would have to charge the same minimum, yes. So I don't see how someone could transition to "cheaper" alcohol since the baseline would be the same. In essence, you can't spend less than 50p per unit. A beer drinker transitioning to vodka would still be paying the same price per unit (or perhaps more) than if they had stuck with beer. In fact, most beers are so expensive that they wouldn't even be able to fall below the Minimum Price in the first place.

EDIT: for reference, the chart from Iohanne's post. Notice how the price of cheap spirits goes waaaay up under a Minimum Price.

code:

                                                                                Min Price
Drink                           Bottle Size    ABV     *Units*     Shop Price     (50p)
----------------------          -----------   ------   -------    ------------  -------- 
Own brand cheap vodka            700 ml        37.5%    26.3         �8.72       �13.15
Smirnoff                         700 ml        37.5%    26.3         �12.00      �13.15
Famous Grouse                    700 ml        40%      28.0         �15.97      �14.00
Highland Park 12yr Scotch        700 ml        40%      28.0         �24.97      �14.00                   
Cheapest white wine              750 ml        8%       6            �2.98       �3.00
Wine of Australia White wine     750 ml        12.5%    9.4          �3.68       �4.69
Carlsberg (4 440ml cans)         1760 ml       3.8%     6.7          �3.98       �3.34
Fosters (20 440ml cans)          8800 ml       4%       35.2         �15.98      �17.60
Strongbow Cider                  2000 ml       5.3%     10.6         �3.22       �5.30
Cheapest Cider+                  2000 ml       4.2%     8.4          �1.53       �4.20

* not on sale
+ Hawksridge

# ¿ Oct 26, 2016 03:29

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Maybe i'm not understanding your point. You keep saying folks will move to "cheaper" spirits if a Minimum Price goes in but you seem to not be noticing that the price of those spirits will increase massively under the policy. The entire point of the policy is to target cheap booze.

All of this still isn't refuting the evidence that a Minimum Price reduces consumption btw.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2016 03:40

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Coohoolin posted:

Scotpol, where universal free university tuition is a regressive subsidy of the upper classes and flat minimum pricing is a progressive empowerment of the working classes.

I support free tuition and Minimum Pricing. Stop trying to blame a "hivemind" just because the facts aren't in your favour.

Also, i'm gonna track down the research links for Iohanne's post either later tonight or tomorrow. Just to add a few more drops in the ocean of evidence provided by baronvonsabre.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2016 18:10

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Coohoolin posted:

I like how we're considering "making thing less available" as the only or best way of reducing these types of ills. Maybe it's possible to have a pouch of tobacco cost less than 11 loving quid AND focus on creating a society where people have no actual reason to indulge in substances, hm?

Reducing prices before solving problems with abuse is just putting the cart before the horse and would likely make things a whole lot worse. Smoking has been declining pretty consistently year-on-year, partially due to higher pricing as well as other innovations. Do we really want to reverse that progress because some people are upset that they have to pay too much for what is essentially a luxury?

# ¿ Oct 26, 2016 20:31

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

We're going in circles.

I get it, some people have the libertarian view that people should do what they want with low taxes or state intervention and that's a perfectly fine view to have. However, the discussion has been about what policies are best for reducing consumption and abuse and apart from a few vague suggestions like "tax the rich more" I haven't really heard anything compelling.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2016 20:48

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Coohoolin posted:

People drink too much because life sucks. Taking away the drinking isn't going to make any better.

Except that it has been proven to work! I don't usually get frustrated but I think people are being wilfully dense at this point.

Minimum Pricing will not stop people drinking altogether! It will only reduce overall consumption in a way that will significantly increase the general health. People are not going to become celibate monks who eschew all earthly pleasures because the price of a bottle of voddy has gone up by less than a fiver. People are not going to be priced out of drinking unless they are drinking at amounts that are damaging to their own health. I prefer to be on the side that argues against people drinking themselves to death and if that makes me a bad person or not a ~true leftie~ then I don't particularly care.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2016 21:02

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Interesting that in both cases the Lib-Dem voters were the kingmakers and in both cases opted for the Tories.

Time is a cycle.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 18:40

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Pissflaps posted:

Does anybody want to talk about baby boxes? Or the latest independence preference polling data?

Baby boxes good. Independence polling data bad.

More substantively, baby boxes are a neat little cheap policy idea and Labour's response to it shows why they are on the way to polling single digits. Independence support won't change until a new approach is taken by Sturgeon. Or the EU suddenly starts being a lot more accommodating to an Independent Scotland's membership post-brexit. I don't see either happening.

At this point (unless something changes dramatically) there needs to be a development of a solid 20-30 year strategy concerning independence, based around a separate Scottish currency and membership of EFTA. 20-30 years is the arbitrary time I give the SNP to sell both of these ideas to the electorate in a way that wins majority support. But i'm an ultra-gradualist which is a dying breed in the party and it's hard to expect a lot of the new-converts to accept such a long-term strategy.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2017 00:05

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14997280.Majority_of_Scots_oppose_second_independence_vote_in_2017__poll_shows/

Pretty standard stuff. No desire for a referendum this year and support for independence is the same as it was 2 years ago.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2017 01:19

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Pissflaps posted:

The NHS is devolved, and we're referring to Scottish independence polling.

A quick injerjection on this point since the rest of what you've said is pretty spot on wrt polling.

The NHS is devolved but if the Tories continue privatisation then the consequentials allocated to Scotland via Barnett will decrease, leading in a reduction of funds available to the Scottish NHS. So, while the NHS is indeed devolved, it's funding is still heavily dependent on the actions of the UK government.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2017 23:18

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Alertrelic posted:

Breakdown of funding allocations, by local authority, is here:
http://www.parliament.scot/S5_Local_Gov/Inquiries/20170203_SPICeLGCBriefStage1.pdf

Also demonstrates why both sides can legitimately argue whether there have been cuts at all, since ringfenced funding means support to local authority services is increasing.

This is the essence of it. Labour want to use Table 2 since it shows a decline. The SNP want to use Table 3 since it shows an increase. Basically it depends on if you count revenues outside of the resource grant as part of the overall funding allocation or not.

The Fraser of Allander Institute sums it up as such.

quote:

Finance Secretary Derek MacKay announced that spending on local government services would increase by around �270m in 2017/18 relative to 2016/17.

Unpicking this number is complex and there are a number of components to this increase.

On the one hand, the resource grant to local government will actually fall by �130m, whilst redistributed Non-Domestic Rate revenues will fall by �163m.

However, spending on local authority education will also receive �120m through the Attainment Fund. Local authority social care workers will also benefit from the �107m new investment in the health budget for Health and Social Care integration which, in part, will support the delivery of the Living Wage for care workers.

Local authorities will see their capital allocation increase by �157m. Crucially, they will now be able to retain for themselves the additional revenues from the increase in council tax bands E-H in their areas (raising �110m), and have the flexibility to increase council tax by 3% overall (raising �70m).

The net effect is that the Cabinet Secretary is able to say that the amount of money available to spend on local services could increase by up to �270 million but much of it comes with strings attached � such as the �120 million to be given to schools and the �107 million for health and social care � and an increase in local tax bills.

Clearly the debate over local government finance will continue for some time yet!

I should mention however that that article was written before the Green concessions so the figures won't be exact anymore.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2017 20:20

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

I never thought Pete Wishart of all people could own someone so thoroughly. But here we are.

If the SNP are the supposed masters of grievance. Then they learned it from the Scottish press, who seem to have a persecution complex larger than the national debt.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2017 18:58

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

https://twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow/status/831502676445757440
Kezia and Corbyn. A recipe for success.

But seriously, those poll numbers are so dire for Labour that I really doubt their legitimacy. I also don't think the SNP are getting anywhere near 47% in a council election, when there are independents to draw away votes. I'd be amazed/ecstatic if they broke 40% in 1st preferences.

Leggsy fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Feb 14, 2017

# ¿ Feb 14, 2017 21:22

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Pissflaps posted:

I'm aware of the family connection and given the content and tone of some of his tweets I've got to ask

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/830904083519242241

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/831830548565852160

is Trump a Scottish Nationalist?

Yes, if you define Scottish Nationalism as "being an idiot on twitter"

Genuinely curious and not trying to be a gotcha or whatever. When was the last time you spoke with a Scottish Nationalist in person? Because I think you'd be surprised by the fact that they too, are normal people and not raving loons as a lot of twitter/the internet can sometimes suggest.

Coincidentally, It's also why I don't approve of people like Wings highlighting stupid/threatening Unionist tweets. That poo poo only helps to reinforce the tribal state of Scottish politics and that's something we can do with less of.

EDIT: And isn't going on about "fake news" more of a Corbyn twitter supporter thing? Wouldn't surprise me if some of the denser cybernats in the swarm went for it as well though.

Leggsy fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Feb 16, 2017

# ¿ Feb 16, 2017 03:09

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

I also have compelling evidence as shown in these weather maps...

# ¿ Feb 17, 2017 05:05

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39020443

Things are moving a lot faster than I would like. There's a bunch of reasons why Sturgeon could be going this fast and they're almost unanimously bad for actually winning a referendum.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2017 21:50

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Pissflaps posted:

They'd have to move quick to try and secure a referendum before the uk leaves the eu - or maybe somebody just fancies a bit of fundraising cash.

It really depends on Sturgeon's intent. If she's moving quickly to capitalise on the Brexit discontent combined with the lack of any real Unionist leadership outside of Ruth Davidson. Then I feel like she might be able to pull something out, although it would be a hell of a gamble from a known pragmatist with a potential loss being absolutely fatal for Scottish Nationalism.

The alternative is that the hardliners have gotten to her, or she's using a referendum as a means of galvanising her base before the local elections in May. Either one of these would be disastrous for the Yes side.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2017 23:34

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Pissflaps posted:

Scotland will have to 'join' the EU one way or another. If Brexit is quick (i.e. follows the two year timetable) I don't see how there's enough time for Scotland to negotiate its entry to the EU without spending some time outside of both the UK and the EU.

Neat little article from yesterday on the practicalities of what you're talking about. The cynic in me says it paints too rosy a picture but I don't see any major problems with their analysis.

EDIT: Changed link to a more long-form article without the Herald's lovely ads.

Leggsy fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Feb 21, 2017

# ¿ Feb 21, 2017 00:31

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

At some point, Scots are going to have to decide if Independence is more risky than Brexit and another 8-13 years of a guaranteed Tory majority government. That might end up being more fatal to the Union than any economic argument.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 11:09

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Bad phrasing on my part. I meant Brexit giving the Tories absolute unchecked power for the next decade due to no EU oversight.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 11:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 19:00

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

It would certainly kill the idea of Independence, unless the UK government manages to do something more destructive than Brexit somehow.

The SNP as a party would keep lurching along, much like the Parti Quebecois, for maybe a another parliament before the party fractures into hardliners and soft-nationalists.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 11:37

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Independence Day 2: Resturgeonce

«‹›3 »