REGARDING the minimum pricing of alcohol: if it becomes more expensive, people will deprive their families, and steal and mug people to get the money to pay the inflated price (Plans for alcohol minimum pricing in Scotland move ahead after court rejects challenge, The National, November 15).
That is common logic. That’s dependency which this policy does nothing to alleviate. Had the money gone to the exchequer, who could fund you to do good work, I would understand and support it. It doesn’t. It goes into the bottom line of retailers.
If price was such a key factor in alcohol consumption, why do countries with lower alcohol prices have lower problems with alcohol than Scots appear to?
This policy is a political palliative. It won’t achieve the desired result, while penalising ordinary folks drinking responsibly, but still having to mitigate the increased cost.
Yes, some Scots have a problem with alcohol, but shouldn’t we be recognising why and dealing with those? This is our politicians ticking a box, a photocall so they can say they’ve done something.
They say it’s one part of a strategy? It’s taken five years to get here. What other parts of this so-called strategy have they implemented meanwhile? Nothing. Zilch. Nada.
If people have followed this debate they will know it was driven by licensees, through the SLTA (Scottish Licensed Trade Association), lobbying Parliament about their perceived unfair competition from supermarkets who have made alcohol consumption at home more attractive than being ripped off in pubs.
With the smoking ban, who needs pubs? Sit at home, a few mates, convivial conversation, watch a movie, sport or gaming, at a cost you can afford. And smoke if acceptable.
This is about the survival of pubs who can’t or refuse to compete, end of. Because we refuse to recognise the root causes, we’re still going to have the same issues. The only difference is who had to go without, or which old biddy is hospitalised in the process.
I suppose those with a vested interest in crime may benefit.
Will there be a new phenomenon of increased booze runs to Carlisle, where, to make it worthwhile, alcohol will be bought in greater bulk, and consumed quicker than usual, and the process repeated?
It is an appalling policy, not properly thought through. Immature government always ticks boxes. Isn’t this particular box Pandora’s box?
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
THOSE who take a keen interest in the affairs of the Holyrood and Westminster parliaments will have recognised the anomaly which characterises the present conduct of Scotland’s Government.
Irrespective of the details agreed in 1997 and any subsequent accords, the prevailing and popular judgment in England is that Holyrood is accountable for everything occurring north of the Tweed.
This is, of course, quite wrong but it is the impression cultivated by the Unionist opposition and disseminated by its media friends in Scotland, the reality being that the Scottish Government is held to account on many matters which are the direct result of actions by Westminster, indicating the situation beloved of Unionists where our Government has accountability without responsibility, especially on financial issues where we in fact have very limited responsibility.
The latest defence by Theresa May for levying VAT on Police Scotland, an unjustifiable imposition, is an example. Only by independence will we be able to eliminate this and other unacceptable situations.
John Hamilton
Bearsden
REGARDING Dennis White’s letter (The National, November 13), although Crown Estate Scotland land and property is owned by the Crown, management is devolved to Scottish Ministers who in turn have tasked us with ensuring it is profitable and sustainable. We do this in a way that benefits Scotland and its communities.
We return all revenue profits to the Scottish Government, not the Queen. Our volunteering opportunities are popular and help those interested in learning about estate management either for leisure or for skills development. And we never pay the minimum wage – we pay all employees at least the real living wage.
Ronnie Quinn, chief executive
Crown Estate Scotland
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel