Friday, 3 August 2012

Minimum Pricing - Poll Results


As can be seen from the result of the 'Should the whisky industry launch a legal challenge to minimum pricing' the No voters led by a mere 4%.

I'm surprised so many voters are content to accept legislation without question, particularly when the report on which the 'evidence' is based is a model - along the lines of the global warming scam.

It is to be hoped that an independent Scotland would have another parliamentary chamber in which all proposed legislation can be rigorously examined and questioned.

Thanks to all 272 who participated.

18 comments:

pa_broon74 said...

I don't think its the case people are accepting it without question. From my POV, I accept this with certain caveats, namely, this isn't all they're planning to do and importantly, if it doesn't work they'll scrap it.

I think people have more confidence they'll be able to have that happen in the Scottish Parliament than say, with Westminster because its much more accessable.

Otherwise, this is one area in which I disagree with the SNP, this urge they have to legislate for everything. Although, alcohol is a blight so 'something should be done', however grudgingly.

tedioustantrums said...

Doing something rather than nothing is never a good thing to do. Increasing the profits of alcohol retailers whilst pushing people into the black market etc. doesn't sound like good legislation.

Pa mentions that they might review it if it isn't working. Like the cigarette ban? The NHS evidence showed no reduction in heart attacks but there has been no change in legislation to mirror this. The plan is to tighten the regulations further.

Where is the evidence of second hand smoke inhalation deaths? There is none. I'm a non-smoker and a non-drinker so none of these new regulations affect me.

I am a voter and I think regulation and restriction should only be considered as a last resort and in very, very few circumstances. The government should follow what people want rather than what they think people should have.

If its about immorality then the money the government are throwing at windmills and the like to address a non problem is way, way, way more damaging to our economy and to the people who live in Scotland.

Apogee said...

Hi SR. The Americans in the 1930's had prohibition and most people are aware of the results, it caused large increase in crime, people were drinking some pretty dangerous things,and basically, it didnt work!
The answer? there is no "answer".
Reducing the legal amount of alcohol allowed in the cheapest rubbish on the market may have an effect, but if humans want to be stupid, well, you can't fix stupid.
If the price is too high they will start making their own booze, and we will end up with people getting poisoned in large quantities.And by poisoned I mean dead! Remember,you can't fix stupid. When will our legislators realise this fact.

English Pensioner said...

I think that too many Scots are looking at independence and the SNP through "rose coloured spectacles"! As an Englishman, I would like Scotland to have its independence because I believe that it is also in our interests. However, viewed from down here, Alex Salmond seems to be behaving like a bumped-up leader of one of our County Councils, who, just because he has a majority, believes he can do exactly as he likes.
To the English, Scots have always had a reputation for stubbornness, which is not a bad thing in itself provided the consequences have been considered; my suspicion is that Salmond, like Gordon Brown, is one of those Scots who does not give sufficient consideration to other people or opinions as he is firmly convinced he is right, something that in the long run will lead to his own downfall.
Certainly, with someone like him in charge, I pity a Scotland without a second chamber capable of delaying or revising contentious legislation. But then as I've made quite clear before, when it comes to the crunch, I don't believe that Scotland will vote for independence.

pa_broon74 said...

In terms of independence, Alex Salmond and the SNP. Those three things and the referendum are not inextricably linked, you can vote yes to independence and no to the SNP aftwards.

Beyond that, at the moment, while the SNP do have a tendency toward knee jerk legislation, they're doing a much better job in government than any other party so I would disagree with the local council analogy.

If anything, its better suited to the Cameron and the Westminster lot, in terms of not listening, how many u-turns have we seen because Osbourne (for example) didn't listen.

Also, arguably, up here, you have to consider who they've got to listen to in the parliament, if you think Salmond etc is bad, the other party leaders couldn't run a bath.

Allan said...

Oh I think a lot of people accept "Minimum Pricing", especially if a) SNP ministers trot out the list of people who think that this is a good idea (the BMA, the Licencees Association, etc etc) and b) most people can smell the vested interest from the Whisky Industry from a country mile...

BTW, It's no use complaining about the SNP government now when the opposition parties put up such febile arguments against "Minimum Pricing" when it was first mooted in 2010.

RMcGeddon said...

It's just another tax on the poor ..for our own good.
And we'll pay for more useless windmills on our leckie bills..for our own good.
And pay for more wars via Nato..for our good.
And pay billions to keep the corrupt EU going..for our own good.
And legalise gay marriage..for our own good.
Nobody ever asked for all of these things but luckily the SNP are looking after us..for our own good.

Barbarian of the North said...

At the risk of being a hypocrit, I'm now against minimum pricing.

I listened to a radio debate recently. One of the participants was a doctor with many years experience of dealing with alcohol related problems, and she had done considerable research into the subject.

Her solution is to have varying duty levels rather than minimum pricing. You raise the retail level of duty and lower it for pubs/clubs etc. Duty goes straight to the taxpayer and it can be more effective. That to me sounds a better idea, since you can change duty much easier than fart around with legislation.

Furor Teutonicus said...

XX pa_broon74 said...

I don't think its the case people are accepting it without question. From my POV, I accept this with certain caveats, namely, this isn't all they're planning to do and importantly, if it doesn't work they'll scrap it. XX

It is not as if this has not already been tried. (AND the fact totaly ignored by your dictatorship, even after I have pointed it out to them on many occassion).

Sweden and Finland in the 50s until the mid 90s had such a policy, after concern about a growing alcoholism problem.

Although the alcoholism rate rose STEEPLY after it's introduction,. and continued rising throughout, it took nigh on 40 years, and joining the E.U, for someone to come along and scrap it.

So, even if it is an abject failure, don't hold your breath waiting to be rescued.

subrosa said...

That's my problem pa_broon. I don't believe it will be scraped.

subrosa said...

Being reactive rather than pro-active is seldom a good thing TT.

If present legislation was enforced we could see the result of that.

As it is A and E admissions are gradually going down.

subrosa said...

Hi Apogee, thanks for reminding us of that.

subrosa said...

Alex Salmond will be too old to take a prominent part in an independent Scotland EP. He's been at the top a long time. It'll be the next generation who make it.

Yes we do need a second chamber. The committees, which usually split down party lines, aren't good enough.

subrosa said...

You've been reading my marketing sheet pa_broon. :)

Indeed, we've no option and Salmond has certainly upped the quality of political representative we should have in Scotland.

subrosa said...

I'm not complaining about the SNP government Allan. My main point was the question of anyone (with enough clout) challenging proposals.

subrosa said...

Indeed RM, although I'm just a fraction less cynical than your good self.

subrosa said...

The problem is - I'm told - that the SG can't change duty levels Barbarian.

Knowing that the Westminster government is also going to introduce this legislation, why couldn't the SG have worked together with them and create a policy using duty.

Naw yer not a hypocrite. It takes a thinking person to change their mind.

subrosa said...

Thanks for that important info Furor. I looked at Norway's laws because I know the cost of booze there is extortionate, but didn't look at Sweden or Finland.

Related Posts with Thumbnails