I think the Scottish Parliament doesn't have powers to make a new tax. After independence however.... I would like to see the extra money raised put into alcohol abuse charities - but maybe the extra money going to retailers will compensate them for the loss at the low end of the market? If they are expected to sell less volume, then a higher margin will compensate.

I think minimum pricing would work, but it would have to be at extortionate levels, eg Norway. It will be interesting to see what the effect on alcohol sales are (by litre rather than cost).

Interesting take on this in yesterday's Sun by their columnist Bill Leckie who argues that minimum alcohol pricing will affect no one except those least able to afford it - the poor.

If the policy is based on quantity against alcohol by volume then proprietary brand spirits, wines, beers and ciders remain unchanged in price. The only brands affected are cheap supermarket brand spirits and low alcohol booze in large containers. Exactly the stuff bought by people on low incomes or yet another tax on the poor.

So what will the result be? If one takes the hikes in cigarette prices as an indicator then sales of rolling tobacco will increase dramatically leading to poor people still smoking, but smoking very thin roll-ups right down to the quick which are even more carcinogenic than proprietary brand filtered cigarettes thereby increasing cancers in a section of the population who are already at high risk. Makes sense doesn't it.

Now turning to booze: if conventional booze is out of your price range then you turn to unconventional booze because what makes you booze is the general awfulness of your life which just got worse because the booze got dearer. See drinking in the Soviet Union for details.

So shoplifting of white spirit and methylated spirits will increase as will supermarket shoplifting. Break-ins to pubs, clubs, off sales and supermarkets will increase. Glue-sniffing and lighter fuel sniffing will again become a feature of our national life as will dead people being found on the street, especially young dead people. You will note that in the original article they complain about the increase in visits to casualty departments and this is true. What they don't mention is the likely increases in visits to the morgue which is what happened in the 1970s and 1980s. They didn't make it to casualty.

Gordon McCaskill wrote:

DJ, no actually they do get it, what they don't want to hear is things that challenge long-held, false beliefs. If you are an intelligent person it is very difficult to accept that some of the things that you've believed for a very long time are, in fact, claptrap. The Land Reform Act being a very good example.

And now we have another with minimum alcohol pricing which is based on the false belief that price will stop consumption when it will simply change consumption.

Eh, Gordon, there are some things they just don't get.

If we go back and take the Land Reform Act as an example, I served on one of the local Scottish NFU committees that reviewed the Bill before it was finalised and I noticed a bit that said you would not be allowed to walk on a resevoir. When I pointed out to the SNH people who were drawing this up that the last man to walk on water lived some 2000 years ago, they didn't bat an eyelid and they didn't change it.
So, as far as I'm aware, this is still part of the LRA that you are not allowed to walk on water. Sorry to disappoint