Recently, I decided to stop drinking myself – partly for health reasons, but also to reassure myself that I could. Like many people in a similar situation I’d been looking for a lead from the political classes in tackling Scotland’s greatest health problem. Some hope. Pig-headed oppositionism has prevailed, as Labour and the Liberal Democrats ignored medical advice and wrecked attempts to introduce minimum pricing. People like me won’t forget – and there are more of us than you might think.
I don’t have a drink problem, but I had become very aware of how much alcohol had infiltrated my life. I go to lots of receptions and dinners where it’s easy to knock back glasses of tepid wine, often to relieve the boredom. I don’t remember when I started having wine regularly with meals at home, but I can certainly remember the days when it was still too expensive so to do.
And when did it become the norm to take drink into plays and concerts? Drink is now so socially acceptable that respectable people see nothing odd in sitting in the park on a warm day knocking back booze. There was a day when only derelicts and winos staggered around with cans in their hands and they would have been moved on by the police. I went to a school fundraiser recently and found that it had an all-day licence.
Now, I have absolutely nothing against drinking, which is for most people a pleasurable and harmless social lubricant. But I’m not alone in thinking that things are getting out of hand. The epidemic of alcohol-related illness is a national emergency – half of all deaths in Scotland are down to alcohol and the mortality rate has doubled in a decade. It’s only when you stop drinking that you realise how cheap and available it has become, and how much other people are consuming. As a nation we have a peculiarly intense love affair with alcohol, but we are not alone – other countries with cold, dark winters, such as Norway, Iceland and Finland have also wrestled with the demon and have come to the conclusion that pricing is an essential weapon in the armoury. No, making booze more expensive won’t stop hardened drinkers getting their fix, nor will it stop people turning to other substances like glue or shoe polish. But what it will do is give a moral lead, reduce consumption and help the very many people who are trying to get their drinking under control.
When I gave up smoking 30 years ago there was a direct financial benefit. I could look at my bank balance and notice the effect of giving up the weed. The financial reward for cutting out alcohol today is negligible. At all levels booze is ludicrously cheap. I recently saw a litre bottle of good whisky for 11 quid. In the 1970s money, that would have been nearer £40. You can buy three litres of strong cider for little more than the price of a pint in a city bar – that’s 18 units. Wine at three or four pounds a bottle is less than half the cost of a decent bottle 30 years ago, inflation adjusted, and wine today is much stronger.
So, it was desperately depressing last week to see the Scottish Government’s proposal for minimum pricing of alcohol falling, essentially, as a result of party tribalism. Labour clearly didn’t want the SNP to get the credit for turning the tide against drink so they found reasons for opposing the legislation. Yes, I know the arguments: the SNP hadn’t shared its legal advice, the Government hasn’t set a price per unit, the supermarkets and off-licences would make a mint. But since when has new Labour been bothered about supermarket super-profits? And if minimum pricing is so lucrative, why are the supermarkets and the drinks companies spending a fortune opposing it? They are interested in volume not price, and they know that ultra-cheap alcohol is a good way to attract people into their stores.
Perhaps the Government could have been more forthcoming on the legal advice, though previous Labour ministers similarly refused to publish advice from the law officers. There are undoubtedly legal issues about minimum pricing: it could be seen as price fixing, and profiteering. There are questions about the legality under European law. But the clearest way to bulldoze these legal obstacles is for the national legislature to mobilise its case and to act decisively and clearly in the national interest. Legal problems were similarly raised over the smoking ban, but they disappeared rapidly once the legislation was in place.
Labour should know this only too well since it was they who piloted the smoking ban through the Scottish Parliament in the face of legal threats, opposition from London and warnings that there would be civil unrest. The First Minister at the time, Jack McConnell, faced them down, remained focused, and acted on the best advice he could get on the medical case for abolition. If only Labour had that kind of leadership now. The SNP could have opposed the smoking legislation in 2005, just as Labour did last week, but to their credit they put aside party advantage and voted it through.
The Liberal Democrat opposition is even worse, because they actually support minimum pricing – it’s in their UK election manifesto. This is very bad politics. The medical authorities are as unanimous on minimum pricing as they were over the smoking ban, and they rounded on the opposition parties last week for wrecking the bill. The legislation has the support of the Chief Medical Officer, the BMA, the Royal Colleges, the Association of Chief Police Officers and numerous campaign groups like Alcohol Focus Scotland. Many believe the SNP’s bill doesn’t go far enough, but they still support the measure as a first step, a moral stand. Lined up against that coalition are the drinks manufacturers, the Scotch Whisky Association and the supermarkets. Whose advice would you choose?
Labour may think that the working man likes his pint and will reward them at the ballot box. But times change. Many social drinkers like me are sobering up; women voters see the damage to families; constituents in housing estates are fed up having to run the gauntlet of teenagers sucking on those big bottles of cider. In defying medical opinion, the police and alcohol charities, Labour has made a serious error of judgment. I believe the opposition parties will eventually realise this – and the sooner the better. But I fear the moment has been lost.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article