I HAVE to refute the contents of the letter from David McEwan Hill in Friday’s National (Letters, May 4). I believe it is he, not Max Cruickshanks, who has not got the point.
In all the TV interviews concerning the minimum price of alcohol in which Nicola Sturgeon has been involved. she has made it quite clear that the aim of this legislation is to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed, in the hope that it will reduce the numbers of people who end up in hospital or are held overnight in a police station because of having abused alcohol.
It has nothing at all to do with persuading the producers of alcohol, such as whisky, to reduce the alcoholic content. Mr McEwan Hill should bear in mind that many of these companies, and in particular the whisky industry, have export markets to contend with. Those overseas markets would not accept reduced alcohol contents in the drink being exported to them. So that rules that out.
Max Cruickshank is also correct in pointing out that this extra has not been put on the suppliers or vendors of the strong drinks in the way of a tax. It is merely a stipulated minimum price that retailers are required to charge. All extra monies collected will go to the retailers, or maybe if the distilleries are lucky they will be able to negotiate a share of it from the retailers. The only tax they will pay on this extra money will be normal company profits tax.
Mr Cruickshanks actually suggests that it would have been more beneficial to the drinkers if it had been put on in the form of a tax and then “ring-fenced” to provide treatment centres to help those with drink problems to overcome their habit.
Max Cruickshanks does not suggest the “patronising pish” concerning the “poor” that Mr McEwan Hill references. In fact Mr Cruickshanks states: “The PR driving unit prices highlights young and poor people as the problem drinkers when, in fact, our whole population is affected. The well-off middle classes over the age of 60 are now known to be one of the most hazardous consumers of alcohol.”
That quite clearly states that the problem lies elsewhere and not with the poor. It’s just that they are the ones we see or hear about. The better-off are able to hide their drinking problems. Maybe this problem is growing amongst the over-60s because they can’t get to the “well controlled and friendly pubs” that Mr McEwan Hill advocates.
In my own area there are no buses after 6pm. I have a walk of about three-quarters of a mile up a steep hill and down the other side to get to the nearest bus route at that time of night. I am 75 years old and could not manage that walk. Obviously, I can’t take a car if I intend drinking. The nearest pub is two-and-a-half miles away and it would cost me £9 each way in a taxi. So just to go out and have two pints at the weekend would cost me around £25. On a pension of £115 per week I can’t afford that.
Instead I sit at home and have an occasional drink on my own. Until last week a litre of whisky would have cost me £16 and would have lasted me about three months. Today that same litre will cost me a minimum of £20. That’s a 25 per cent increase. My pension this year went up by 2.5 per cent, so there’s no way I can afford to maintain the amount I drink.
My doctor is aware of exactly how much I drink and is satisfied that it is not a problem amount. I don’t become rowdy and disturb my neighbours. The police are not called out to arrest me for making any disturbance. But I am punished financially; not for what I do but for what others are doing. Maybe if it was in the form of a tax that would derive some benefit for the community I could accept it. But it’s not, and I therefore feel I am being treated very unfairly by the Scottish Government. The small amount I do drink is not a problem to me or to anyone else, so why should I be financially penalised?
It is undoubtedly the poor that this measure will hurt. The better-off can almost certainly absorb the extra cost from what they earn. If they are, as Mr Cruickshanks states, “the most hazardous consumers of alcohol”, then this measure is missing the mark!
Sorry Mr McEwan Hill, but you’ve got it wrong. I side very much with Kevin McKenna on this and will henceforth be adopting May 1 as PISS Day!
Charlie Kerr
Glenrothes
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