Beware rush to judgment on minimum booze price
IN MAY last year, the Scottish Government imposed a minimum price on alcohol at 50p per unit.
The aim was to cut the damage done by excessive drinking across society by making it harder to purchase. Critics of the policy claimed it unfairly targeted the poor. Others argued it would not deter hard drinkers.
After just one year, minimum unit pricing (MUP) has failed, apparently. Alcohol sales increased by 1.8million litres in the last year. What more proof do we need that the drive to tackle Scotland’s booze culture is already a disaster?
One vocal critic is Brian Monteith, a conservative commentator notable for occasionally saying sensible things. Monteith represents a significant body of opinion in opposition to MUP with which I have the least sympathy or time.
His argument that the jury is out on the policy contains three mistaken assumptions – the first, that Government interventions are never effective; the second, that the increase in alcohol sales is significant; the third, that the effectiveness of a social policy can be measured as a success or failure within 12 months.
Let’s deal with these in reverse order. The big success story in Scotland in recent years has been the gradual reduction in violence, attributable in large part to the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit (VRU).
The VRU was established in 2005, with a remit to view violence through the prism of public health as well as criminal justice.
However, in the years following the VRU’s creation, Scottish police forces recorded 118 cases as homicides – a 26 per cent rise from the previous year.
Had we declared the VRU a failure based on that, it’s highly likely that we would never have enjoyed the benefits seen over the subsequent 10-year period, where violence eventually fell to its second lowest level since 1974.
Let’s focus on this 1.8 million litre increase in alcohol sales. First, these figures don’t tell us much about who is buying the alcohol.
MUP is designed to target a specific type of drinker, one that regularly consumes alcohol at a level higher than the recommended amount – 1.8million sounds like a lot but in fact represents a rise of less than one per cent. The data also shows spending on beer, gin and wine was behind the increase – hardly tipples associated with chronic alcoholism.
We’ve had a World Cup, a royal wedding and a heatwave in the last 12 months. Perhaps these contributed to the tiny increase in sales?
Lastly, let’s deal with the conservative assumption that state intervention is generally not a good idea.
I find it odd, given the Tory Government is never done using the machinery of the state – from the tax code to welfare – to not-so-subtly discourage certain things, like being an unemployed, gay, disabled, single parent about to become homeless because you’re an immigrant, for example.
In fact, the entire British public service infrastructure has been repurposed into a surveillance state with the singular purpose of using institutional hostility as a means of disincentivising millions from behaving in certain ways.
Sadly, the raison d’etre of many “commentators” is basically to establish whatever the Scottish Government’s position is on an issue and instinctively argue against it.
Of the smoking ban, Monteith once warned: “This can only lead to violence, if bar and restaurant owners have to try and enforce this stupid legislation themselves.”
“Stupid legislation” which, since its introduction, has saved Scots from breathing in more than half a ton of toxic gunk. The only question remaining is – who will save us from Brian Monteith?