Mather gunning for Westminster copying Scotland’s minimum pricing of alcohol strategy after parties’ blocking it in Holyrood

Jim Mather, MSP for Argyll & Bute, has commented critically on the news that the minimum pricing of alcohol that was condemned as ‘impractical and unworkable’ by Tories, LibDems and Labour at Holyrood is now proposed by the Coalition government for England.

The Scottish Government’s proposal received widespread support from Health, Legal and Police opinion across Scotland.

Mr Mather decries the political cynicism capable of introducing in England, even in its presently diminished form, the same sort of measure ‘the London-led parties acted together to sabotage in Holyrood’.

This was a measure that relevant professionals judged capable of helping to tackle the serious social problems faced by the abuse of alcohol in Scotland.

The failure of the Scottish Parliament to resist the energetic lobbying from the drinks industry and to set aside political points scoring in the greater interests of an honourable attempt to address what is arguably Scotland’s greatest social and health problems was a low moment.

Jim Mather says: ‘The combined and concerted action against the proposals by the Scottish Government to introduce a realistic and effective level of Unit Minimum Pricing for alcohol can be seen for what it is: those same parties are now proposing a similar, but much less effective, system for England.

‘The Scottish Government’s sensible plans, widely backed by health professionals, for a genuine minimum unit price level were blocked by the combined efforts of Labour, the Tories and the LibDems.

‘They now appear to have conceded the principle at Westminster that they opposed so vigorously at Holyrood although the current proposals seem to be seriously compromised and unlikely to achieve much in combating the problems of alcohol abuse. The proposals to use the level of duty along with VAT as a control could actually result in the costs of some cheap sources of alcohol becoming even cheaper. Is this the ‘UK wide’ solution that they suggested would tackle the problem?

‘It is simply not acceptable to play political games while neglecting serious health issues. The weight of informed opinion in support of the SNP proposals was overwhelming and yet that was cynically ignored. I find it particularly disturbing that these parties felt unable to put aside their political prejudices when an genuine opportunity arose to take effective action to combat the widely recognised problems of alcohol misuse in Scotland’.

· · · · · · · · ·

Related Articles & Comments

  • On a point of fact the Westminster scheme is substantially different in that it would prevent alcohol being sold for less than the price of duty+vat. What this would mean is that retailers could not use alcohol as a ‘loss-leader’.

    The SNP option merely increased the price at which alcohol could be sold per unit. Any extra revenue raised by the increased price would have stayed with the retailers.

    The Westminster model, if implemented, would allow the minimum price to rise over time as the duty rate rose but with all extra income going to Government.

    If all Scottish alcohol taxes were set from Holyrood, I’d guess that a similar scheme would have been introduced here, but probably with a pretty large increase in duty.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    BFOandC January 21, 2011 2:20 am Reply
  • BFOandC is really splitting hairs in the way that the disgraceful opposition parties in Holyrood have done.What if the SNP had done this on the smoking ban issue which became law on March 26th 2006?Today there would still be the intrusive smoke in all public places and even more incidences of lung cancers and associated diseases.This was perhaps the worst example of political positionising and opportunism and I have ever come across. In Labour’s case it was a most cynical and backward attempt to prevent socially highly progressive and necessary legislation being credited to the SNP. A truly shameful episode.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Alan Clayton January 22, 2011 9:04 am Reply
  • I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with anything Alan Clayton has said.

    However, there’s a first time for everything and he’s absolutely right on this.

    ‘Shameful’ is an understatement.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    bill jardine January 24, 2011 1:26 pm Reply
  • Splitting hairs? I don’t think so, there is a fundamental difference – the SNP proposal would have increased the price by increasing the retailers revenue whereas the Westminster proposals will prevent loss-leaders and ensure that the tax set by Government is properly implemented.

    Will this proposal have the SNP’s support?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    BFOandC January 25, 2011 10:38 pm Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *