ANDREW Bowie’s claim that Scots would go on “cross border booze cruises” to get around minimum unit alcohol pricing has been debunked by new research.
A law that put a minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol to tackle low-cost, high-alcohol drinks sparked fury from Bowie when it was first announced.
The Tory MP claimed that the legislation would encourage trips south of the Border for cheaper booze and batch buys from sites like Amazon.
He tweeted: “Disappointed at judgement from Supreme Court this morning re Minimum Unit Pricing in Scotland. So many issues unanswered. How do you police buying alcohol online from eg Amazon? Cross border booze cruises? Wrong policy and will not tackle blight of alcoholism.”
Disappointed at judgement from Supreme Court this morning re Minimum Unit Pricing in Scotland. So many issues unanswered. How do you police buying alcohol online from eg Amazon? Cross border booze cruises? Wrong policy and will not tackle blight of alcoholism.
— Andrew Bowie MP (@AndrewBowie_MP) November 15, 2017
However, new research from Public Health Scotland has shown that this has hardly happened at all.
Published on Tuesday, the report found that a mere 3% of the more than 1000 people canvassed in the study said that they had travelled to other parts of the UK just to buy alcohol.
It also found that off-licence alcohol sales in the north-east and north-west of England only rose by 1.14% since before the policy was put in place in 2018.
READ MORE: Drug crisis: Evaluation of Scottish Government's drug and alcohol spending required
The study also found that none of the alcohol vendors interviewed were aware of Scots travelling to England to bulk buy alcohol.
Analysis of online alcohol shopping also found that major savings to be made from purchasing from other parts of the UK would require a substantial bulk buy.
Public Health Minister Maree Todd said: “These findings mirror those of other studies and show that any cross-border purchasing which does take place is unlikely to be large enough to have any negative effect on the intended outcome of MUP which is to help reduce alcohol-related harm.
“Reducing alcohol-related harm is a key priority for the Scottish Government and the 3.5% decrease in alcohol sales we have seen following the introduction of minimum unit pricing in May 2018 reinforces why Scotland was right to take this innovative step.
“Given the clear and proven link between consumption and harm, minimum unit pricing is the most effective way to tackle cheap, high-strength alcohol that causes so much damage to so many families.”
Todd went on to add that the current levels of minimum unit pricing are under review.
Helen Chung Patterson, public health intelligence Adviser at Public Health Scotland said:
“The research published today shows that while cross-border purchasing does happen, the extent is small relative to the purchasing behaviours of Scotland’s population as a whole.
“A key strength of this report is that it enables us to build up a picture of cross-border alcohol-purchasing behaviours from several perspectives. We have examined data on retail sales and alcohol licencing near the border, drawn on qualitative interviews with retailers, gathered customer survey data and explored the factors affecting in-person and online cross-border purchases.
“When several different methods produce broadly similar results, as is the case with the report published today, this increases confidence in the findings.”
According to figures released last year, in 2020 deaths linked solely to alcohol increased by 9% to 1190 while, in the same year, alcohol sales fell to a 26 year low.
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