|
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 | ||
|
According to Common Space, a spokesperson for Juncker has confirmed he'll be meeting with Scottish representatives soon. EDIT: Ok, found the original tweet this is based on, seems to just be saying that he'll meet with Scottish representatives whenever they want, rather than putting a timescale on it. baronvonsabre fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Jun 27, 2016 |
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:What what what? Yeah, that's what I thought too, but see the edited post - they're just saying he's open to meet rather than that they are meeting soon. Here's the tweet Common Space were referring to. Worth saying as well that this was apparently said by Margaritis Schina, the Chief EU Commission spokesperson, not just some anonymous aide.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:Don't they think meeting with representatives of a constituent nation of a larger sovereign country who hosed off to all hells is a dumb move politically? I actually think it's quite clever. At the moment the EU needs to look magnanimous about Brexit - coming down hard on the UK like they did with Greece is a PR disaster that it probably won't survive. By just suggesting to meet with leaders and work out a solution for everyone, it makes them look good since it appears they're trying to respect the democratic wishes of both Scotland and rUK, while also cementing the narrative about England and Wales being full of knuckle-dragging racists that have no idea what they're doing, dragging Scotland back into the dark ages and plunging Europe into chaos because of their idiocy. It allows them and the SNP to shape the narrative in a way that the Tories/Labour can't because they're too busy fighting each other. baronvonsabre fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
Yeah, that is what I meant. And to be fair, the Tories are doing the same, they just have the decency to stab each other behind closed doors rather than in public
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
tithin posted:Closed doors? you seem to have forgotten how the UK got into this referendum in the first place Well of course, but I mean right now when it's important for a show of unity and cohesion. The Tories certainly aren't managing to do that, but Labour are doing a really good job at distracting everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
Downing Street: Scotland doesn't need independence referendumquote:Scotland does not need a "divisive" second referendum on independence, according to Downing Street.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/747742463499059200
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
Also: Nicola Sturgeon set for top-level talks with the EUquote:First Minister Nicola Sturgeon will meet the President of the European Parliament tomorrow in Brussels. Emphasis mine.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
I don't think anything has been ruled out yet, but the general rumblings are that it can't happen if Scotland was still part of the UK, which is logical.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I don't think there's any chance Scotland would retain the UK's opt outs and rebate. I think there's a good chance we'll keep at least some of them (though probably not the rebate). It's in the EU's interest politically to make Scotland's transition as smooth as possible since that makes them look reasonable and practical and respectful of the democratic wishes of a national electorate. Doing so will also make rUK look even more like a bunch of idiots who cut off their nose to spite their face, which reduces the chance of other members deciding to leave.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
The rebate I agree on. But I still think the political advantages to the EU will mean they'll be more than happy to agree on letting Scotland keep some of the other options, particularly an opt-out of using the Euro, since that's a sticking point for a lot of people. That said, I'm not sure if by the time a hypothetical independence referendum comes around that we'd still want to use the pound...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I think the argument that Scotland could be notionally required to join the Euro without there ever being any real pressure to do so is reasonable. Unfortunately, we're just going to have to wait and see what happens to the Pound. I suppose we could make our own currency and peg it to the Euro or Dollar.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Listening to the Scottish Parliament discussion at the moment. I'm not the biggest fan of Kezia Dugdale, but I'm really appreciating her using this opportunity to stick a knife into the Tories rather than her own party.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Niric posted:I largely agree with you, and this is similar to what I meant in the previous thread when I said that I don't think Yes have won the argument, but the more I think about it, the more I suspect the EU issue could fundamentally realign the campaign to Yes's benefit. The choice now isn't between staying in the UK or an independence whose claimed advantages were often either ill-defined or based on a vague sense of Scottish exceptionalism whose logic - if certainly not its practice - had the famiiiar echo of "taking our country back". Instead, with any new indyref the Yes camp (and this seems to be the way the SNP are headed) can - and in my opinion should - frame the debate as a clear choice between two different, incompatible, but fundamentally known and tangible political and economic unions. It won't convince everyone of course - and may even deter some of the 40% of the country who voted leave (many of whom voted Yes initially) - but I think it's a much stronger basis for a debate than Yes had previously. It won't be won on the basis of the economy. There's a stronger argument the SNP are now able to make, even just implicitly; that a vote to stay in Britain is a vote for intolerance and racism and hatred of anyone not English; while a vote for independence is a vote for constructive cooperation with Europe and the world, looking outwards to a world and the future, rather than being forced against our will to wallow in England's nostalgia for an empire that died long ago. we've just seen how a similar argument based on absolutely nothing won, this one actually has some substance to it. baronvonsabre fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
www posted:According to this Scotland isnt a net beneficiary quote:The UK’s net contribution is almost £8 billion, the equivalent of £117 per person. However, the English on their own contribute more than that, averaging £140 per person. Goddamn, I didn't realise it was that bad for Wales.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:She's been sent home and told they won't talk to her about anything meaningful. It's not done much for her image. Rubbish, she's done excellently. The EU members as a whole have consistent in being sympathetic but firm that they will only negotiate with member states rather than a constituent nation of one. That fits exactly into the narrative they'll put forward that, while the EU is sympathetic, they can't do anything to help as Scotland is dragged out of the EU against its will by England. Unless, of course, you were an independent country, then we'd be more than happy to discuss things. It's a mutually beneficial narrative for both sides: for the EU they can be respectful and not look like they're interfering in internal UK affairs, while for the SNP it shows that there are no options if you want EU membership other than independence. It also highlights the fact that we can't do these things on our own, even though we are competent enough to do so. Rather than have the Scottish parliament negotiate for us, which has got its poo poo together and agreed on a cross party basis to try and sort this out, we're having to rely on a government with no leader and an opposition that prefers to fight itself rather than propose any solutions. It's a propaganda goldmine for the SNP right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Someone with aspirations of being seen as a 'world leader' needs to come home with more than sympathy and some cheap fags. It was just a stunt. It doesn't matter if it was a stunt or not. She can't come home with more than that unless Scotland is independent. That's the point that she has just demonstrated to every person in Scotland.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:GIven recent developments? It'd say definitely. Especially since people were genuinely discussing a 'Reverse Greenland' as a thing that they wanted to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Doesn't really matter when she's the only candidate that isn't completely incompetent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
I presume that's from the European and External Relations Committee this morning. Didn't watch it myself, but the report will be available from 6pm today apparently. The panel of experts discussion doesn't appear to be up on the Scottish Parliament YouTube account yet, only the first part with Fiona Hyslop
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Police Scotland: No rise in hate crime in Scotland since Brexitquote:Police Scotland has claimed that it has not witnessed any increase in the reportage of hate crimes in Scotland in the aftermath of the UK’s vote to leave the EU. As they say, this doesn't mean that hate crimes aren't rising as well in Scotland, but it is at least something that it appears that there hasn't been the same drastic rise as has been reported in England.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That may also be as a result of Scotland being 95% white. Well, yes and no. If we were just comparing raw total number of hate crimes occurring between Scotland and England then of course Scottish numbers are lower for that reason. However, this is about a proportional increase in reported hate crimes, so population size and the proportion of which are ethnic minorities don't really come into it, since it normalises those factors to a significant degree. Demographics probably do still have influence, but if the referendum was causing an increase in hate crime incidence in Scotland, we would expect that it would be clear that it was increasing here as well (though probably by less than what it has in England), rather than apparently not changing at all. EDIT: thanks for the link. Parliament.tv has the full video in one part, and the second half with the Expert Panel is now on YouTube baronvonsabre fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:Does Aberdeen still have a fairly sizeable National Front presence? I lived there about 10 years ago and remember being shocked by the amount of NF and swastika graffiti around the place. I've had flyers from them a couple of times around elections, but I couldn't really say if they have any more presence than that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Dorset police said they've had no reported rise either. Seems to be localised to certain areas. That's very interesting, given that Dorset was such a strong area for Leave.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
Slovak leader (Robert Fico, next EU president) promises help with velvet divorcequote:The European Union’s next president has offered to help broker the divorce between Scotland and the rest of the UK should voters elect to dissolve the Union over disagreement on Brexit. Looks like "we want you to join the EU and we'll make it easy for you, but you have to be an independent country" is definitely the narrative the EU are going for.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
quote:Having spoken to social workers I get the impression that professionals tend to thinks the policy is alright in principle, wouldn't actually change very much in terms of practice, and that anyone getting outraged over it doesn't really know what they're talking about (or is trying to score cheap and easy political points) That's exactly why they're doing it. Since the policy is pretty benign and has the support of charities and professionals working in the field, it makes those opposing it look completely irrational. As soon as you find out that people who understand the issue pretty much unanimously support it, the obvious conclusion is that anyone opposing it is either so blinded by their hatred of the SNP that they either can't assess a piece of legislation on its own merits, or, more interestingly, that they can but are lying about it in order to have a stick to beat the SNP with. Either way, it erodes trust in dissenting voices and means you're more likely to question them rather than the SNP.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
All fair points, especially regarding the poor quality of the legislation. However:Niric posted:The opposition I've seen is also less anti-SNP (though obviously there's an element of that) and more a kind of emotive "stop the government meddling in the family!" It's somewhat irrational sure, but also entirely understandable (and predictable) and isn't going to be easily quelled by pointing to the nitty gritty of the legislation. The issue is that the policy (appears to) assert the authority of professionals over families in terms of child rearing, so saying professionals support it isn't a great argument that's likely to sway doubters I disagree with this, at least to the point where it doesn't really matter whether it is about being anti-SNP or not, since it can so easily be interpreted as such. Not that the Scottish media are helping themselves when they're putting up garbage headlines like " Supreme Court blocks 'totalitarian' Named Person scheme in historic ruling", as the Press and Journal did.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Minimum pricing is an interesting case though, since the issue was proving that it was more effective at achieving the goals set out for it than just changing taxation. Given that alcohol duty is reserved, it probably got as far as it did because other courts took that into account, while the ECJ didn't care.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Some good news:quote:Prejudice of all types 'falling across Scotland' The full report is available here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
Niric posted:Buzzfeed has a pretty decent, if brief (and a bit inconsistent in terms of time frames compared), summary of the SNP's 9 years of government. The unsurprising take away is that their record bears little to no relationship to the celebratory (to put it mildly) claims of some of their supporters. Take the education section for instance. I mentioned earlier in this thread how the 4 times less students in Scotland from poor backgrounds is partly due to the general better quality of universities in Scotland (in fact, one of the papers they link to in that article says that the comparative gap for highter tariff universities in England is 7 times), but other points are just as easily explained. The decline in mathematics and reading performance in Scottish schools shown by the OECD report occured mainly between 2003 and 2006, so before the SNP came into power, and it appears to be a UK wide phenomenon rather than just a Scottish issue. The SNP obviously haven't been able to turn it around, but it hasn't declined further either and Scotland still outperforms the rest of the UK on most measures. The decrease in children performing well or very well is probably linked to child poverty increases rather than anything to do with the education budget and I would argue that has more to do with the finanical crash in 2007 and the election of the Tory-Lib Dem coalition than the SNP majority. And while they mention that funding for schools has declined, attainment in key areas actually increased during the same time frame. Hell, lest you think I'm just saying this to spin it "as actually the SNP are great", you can do it for the other graphs as well. Crime has fallen over time and is at its lowest recorded level ever, but that's in line with the decline accross the UK and Western Europe as a whole, so its hardly something the SNP can take credit for; the affordable housing targets are being met, but it's still nowhere near enough to stave off the problems with lack of housing that we're facing; and while Scotland has more GPs per head, given the distribution of the population in Scotland, I'm pretty sure that if you look closer at those results it'll turn out that people in Scotland have much further to go to see a GP than people living elsewhere in the UK. Point is, the graphs don't present any kind of incisive picture of how the SNP have done. They're not proof that the SNP are useless except for somehow managing to pull wool over the eyes of the Scottish people and turn them into the Scottish sheeple. They're just isolated facts that you can spin whatever way you want.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Virgin Money boss to lead review of student supportquote:The Scottish Government has appointed the chief executive of Virgin Money to lead a review of student support. That's grants going to be cut again in the near future then.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Link the evidence, then. Ok. All emphasis below is mine, evidence is from lots of different places since I don't have time to hunt for UK/Scotland specific sources: Increasing price of alcohol reduces consumption and alcohol related illness/mortality Alcohol dependence and the price of alcoholic beverages quote:The evidence presented here suggests that higher prices for alcoholic beverages would reduce alcohol-related morbidity and is consistent with earlier studies indicating that higher alcohol prices would reduce acute consequences of drinking. The Impact of a 25 Cent-Per-Drink Alcohol Tax Increase: Who Pays the Tab? quote:Raising the price of alcohol through taxation is a highly effective strategy by which to reduce excessive drinking and related harms. A 25 cent-per-drink tax increase would result in more than a 10% reduction in heavy drinking, which would yield a substantial public health benefit for a behavior that currently leads to approximately 79,000 deaths annually in the U.S. quote:There is also interest about who pays the most in alcohol taxes based on socio-economic factors, particularly among lower-risk drinkers who are unlikely to be detrimental to public health and safety. Among lower-risk drinkers, both in aggregate and on a per capita basis, groups who paid the most for an alcohol tax increase were male, white, relatively affluent and educated, and employed. Therefore, assuming that alcohol tax revenues were used for across-the-board offsets to other tax obligations, lower-risk drinkers from relatively disadvantaged socio-economic groups would realize a net economic gain from an alcohol tax increase. Among higher-risk drinkers, however, those who were relatively poor, less educated and non-employed paid more in per capita tax increases than other groups. Also, it should be noted that any tax increase on those with less income will take a larger proportion of their income than would the same tax on someone earning more, and could thus be potentially regressive in nature. In this case, however, that larger financial impact might lead to greater reductions in drinking and a larger public health benefit for those same individuals. The Effectiveness of Tax Policy Interventions for Reducing Excessive Alcohol Consumption and Related Harms quote:A systematic review of the literature to assess the effectiveness of alcohol tax policy interventions for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms was conducted for the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). Seventy-two papers or technical reports, which were published prior to July 2005, met specifıed quality criteria, and included evaluation outcomes relevant to public health (e.g., binge drinking, alcohol-related crash fatalities), were included in the fınal review. Nearly all studies, including those with different study designs, found that there was an inverse relationship between the tax or price of alcohol and indices of excessive drinking or alcohol-related health outcomes. Among studies restricted to underage populations, most found that increased taxes were also signifıcantly associated with reduced consumption and alcohol-related harms. According to Community Guide rules of evidence, these results constitute strong evidence that raising alcohol excise taxes is an effective strategy for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. The impact of a potential tax increase is expected to be proportional to its magnitude and to be modifıed by such factors as disposable income and the demand elasticity for alcohol among various population groups quote:A potential concern is that increases in alcohol taxes may have a greater proportional economic impact on people with lower incomes (i.e., alcohol taxes may be regressive). However, alcohol taxes constitute a minor proportion (i.e., <1%) of the tax burden of Americans, including those with low incomes. As such, concerns about the regressive nature of such taxes could be readily addressed by compensatory changes in other elements of the tax system. In addition, the amount of tax paid is directly related to the amount of alcohol consumed, and thus increases in alcohol excise taxes will be disproportionately paid by excessive drinkers, who also experience most of the alcohol-related harms and thus generate most alcohol-attributable economic costs. Furthermore, the beneficial economic results of reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms may also be disproportionately greater for people with low incomes. Lower-income people may be particularly vulnerable to the harmful consequences of excessive alcohol consumption—consumed by themselves or others—because of factors such as lower rates of health insurance coverage, which may result in lack of or incomplete treatment for alcohol-related illness or injuries. Increasing alcohol excise taxes could also directly benefit low-income populations if the revenue generated from these taxes is used to help improve the availability of healthcare services for uninsured and other vulnerable populations Reducing price of alcohol massively increases number of deaths Changes in Alcohol-Related Mortality and its Socioeconomic Differences After a Large Reduction in Alcohol Prices: A Natural Experiment Based on Register Data quote:The authors examined the effect of a large reduction in the price of alcohol in Finland in 2004 on alcohol-related mortality by age and socioeconomic group. For this register-based study of Finns aged ≥15 years, data on independent variables were extracted from the employment statistics of Statistics Finland. Mortality follow-up was carried out for 2001–2003 (before the price reduction) and 2004–2005 (after). Alcohol-related causes were defined using both underlying and contributory causes of death. Alcohol-related mortality increased by 16% among men and by 31% among women; 82% of the increase was due to chronic causes, particularly liver diseases. The increase in absolute terms was largest among men aged 55–59 years and women aged 50–54 years. Among persons aged 30–59 years, it was biggest among the unemployed or early-age pensioners and those with low education, social class, or income. The relative differences in change between the education and social class subgroups were small. The employed and persons aged <35 years did not suffer from increased alcohol-related mortality during the 2 years after the change. These results imply that a large reduction in the price of alcohol led to substantial increases in alcohol-related mortality, particularly among the less privileged, and in chronic diseases associated with heavy drinking. Minimum pricing of alcohol reduces consumption and alcohol related illness/mortality The relationship between minimum alcohol prices, outlet densities and alcohol-attributable deaths in British Columbia, 2002–09 quote:A 10% increase in average minimum price for all alcoholic beverages was associated with a 31.72% [95% confidence interval (CI): ± 25.73%, P < 0.05] reduction in wholly AA deaths. quote:Increases in the minimum price of alcohol in British Columbia, Canada, between 2002 and 2009 were associated with immediate and delayed decreases in alcohol-attributable mortality. INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL PRICING AND PROMOTION: Part B quote:: Increasing levels of minimum pricing show very steep increases in effectiveness. Overall changes in consumption for 20p, 25p, 30p, 35p, 40p, 45p, 50p, 60p, 70p are: -0.1%, -0.3%, -0.6%, -1.4%, -2.6%, -4.5%, -6.9%, -12.8% and 18.6%. Lower minimum prices affect beers and spirits more than wine. Higher minimum prices reduce switching effects. Minimum prices targeted at particular beverages are less effective than all-product minimum prices, and only minimum prices for beer show noticeable effects. Differential minimum pricing for on-trade and off-trade leads to more substantial reductions in consumption (30p off-trade together with an 80p on-trade minimum price -2.1% versus -0.6% for 30p only; 40p together with 100p -5.4% compared to -2.6% for 40p only). This is firstly because much of the consumption by younger and hazardous drinking groups (including those at increased risk of criminal offending due to high intake on a particular day) occurs in the on-trade. It is also because increasing prices of cheaper alcohol in the on-trade dampens down the behaviour switching effects when off-trade prices are increased. Alcohol-use disorders: prevention quote:3.09 Making alcohol less affordable is the most effective way of reducing the harm it causes among a population where hazardous drinking is common – such as in the UK (Chisholm et al. 2004). There is extensive evidence (within the published literature and from the economic analysis undertaken to support this guidance) to justify the introduction of a minimum price per unit. For example, the evidence suggests that young people who drink and people (including young people) who drink harmful amounts tend to choose cheaper alcoholic products. Establishing a minimum price per unit would limit the ability of these groups to 'trade down' to cheaper products. The same effect would be more difficult to achieve through alcohol duties, as retailers or producers may absorb the cost of any extra duty levied. Effects of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on different income and socioeconomic groups: a modelling study quote:Our policy appraisals suggest that introduction of a £0·45 minimum unit price would have substantially different effects across consumption, income, and socioeconomic groups. These differences are driven by the alcohol consumption and purchasing patterns of population subgroups, the price elasticities of the different alcoholic beverages they purchase, and each group's risk of harm related to alcohol consumption. Moderate drinkers, including those with low incomes, would be little affected by the policy because they purchase only small quantities of alcohol at less than the proposed £0·45 minimum unit price threshold. Both non-drinking and moderate consumption are more prevalent in low income groups, meaning large proportions of these groups would not be substantially affected by the policy. Effects would be much more striking for harmful drinkers. The model estimates that harmful drinkers with the lowest incomes would reduce their consumption the most, while consumption in harmful drinkers with high incomes would also reduce. Notably, the estimated health benefits from the policy are also unequally distributed among socioeconomic groups. Most health gains occur in harmful drinkers in the poorest routine or manual worker groups, suggesting that the policy could contribute substantially to the reduction of health inequalities. Re: Costs of minimum alcohol pricing would outweigh benefits quote:Thirdly, Snowdon claims that MUP is regressive and will penalise those on low incomes. We have recently published a detailed equity-focused appraisal of MUP which shows this argument to be simplistic [3]. As moderate drinkers with low incomes buy very little alcohol sold for less than the proposed 45p per unit threshold, the effect on them will be negligible. In contrast, alcohol purchases made by heavy drinkers with low incomes will be substantially affected. However, as this is the group at greatest risk of harm due to their drinking, they also stand to accrue the greatest health gains from the policy. We estimate approximately 80% of the health benefits of MUP would accrue to those in routine or manual worker households and the long-term unemployed – a clearly progressive outcome. Any judgement on the equity of MUP should take this more nuanced assessment into account. Potential benefits of minimum unit pricing for alcohol versus a ban on below cost selling in England 2014: modelling study quote:The ban on below cost selling, implemented in the England in May 2014, is estimated to have small effects on consumption and health harm. The previously announced policy of a minimum unit price, if set at expected levels between 40p and 50p per unit, is estimated to have an approximately 40-50 times greater effect. And, as a bonus: THE COST OF ALCOHOL: THE ADVOCACY FOR A MINIMUM PRICE PER UNIT IN THE UK quote:Current findings indicate that participants were largely sceptical of the introduction of a minimum price per unit alcohol-pricing policy and expressed doubts regarding its effectiveness. Participants did, however, suggest that the policy could be made more acceptable if introduced as part of a wider strategy to curb alcohol consumption. Present findings suggest that participants’ objections to a minimum price per unit were the result of three main issues:
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
Could you not have just quoted a single title you want me to refer to, rather than leaving me to guess from the list of many studies showing that it isn't? Would save me a lot of time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:You saying you haven't read all these articles you meticulously compiled? I have, and that's why I'm confused.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Jedit posted:No, because I'm phone posting. I also didn't see the need because you emboldened the relevant section. Second study on the list. Well, yes, that paper does show a tax increase for the poor, but that's because that paper is actually talking about a general 25% increase on alcohol tax, not minimum pricing of units. I included it as a contrast to the minimum pricing papers, to show how both reduce alcohol-related illnesses/mortalities by increasing the cost but how they do so in different ways and hit different demographics.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:As cigarette and tobacco prices have risen, in combination with cheaper air travel across europe, the market for black market and grey market tobacco (where the duty has been paid somewhere in the EU but the tobacco is then resold illegally) has increased. If alcohol prices rise I see little reason why a corresponding market for alcohol won't take shape, although Brexit may well put the brakes on it a bit. This is a red herring, and a common line of attack used by the drinks industry to stave off regulation. Even if the black/grey market does increase (and I'm not saying it wouldn't), it can't make up for the reduction caused by minimum pricing - you wouldn't see the 10% increase in average minimum price in Canada causing a 32% reduction in alcohol attributable deaths if it did.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
In non Trump-related news: Sturgeon announces £250,000 fund to help trade unions (emphasis theirs)quote:Nicola Sturgeon has announced a £250,000 fund aimed at helping trade unions mitigate the impact of new UK legislation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Blue Star Error posted:https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/technology/twitter-trolls-post-racist-homophobic-abuse-likely-hail-scotland/ The full report is available here if anyone is interested. Interestingly, it appears from the heat map of racist tweets for the UK that the only bad places in Scotland are East Ayrshire and Midlothian and that overall, Scotland tends to be less racist than England and Wales. The Highlands are apparently less racist than most places in the UK, though they are extremely homophobic according to the research, which is not surprising. I wouldn't read too much into the report overall though. The regional breakdown for each issue varies quite significantly from issue to issue despite misogyny, racism and homophobia highly correlating with each other. I would imagine a good part of that variation will be based on the methodology they use to extract and categorise tweets, which isn't explained in the report aside from a cursory "we did this". There's no explanation of what the parameters they used were, so I couldn't even suggest with any authority what the issues actually are; it's that vague.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
Niric posted:I suspect this will be used as evidence of how socialist/left wing the SNP are by the usual suspects. On a related note: https://twitter.com/ScotTories/status/800307708217815040
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 13:11
|
|