Minimum Unit Alcohol Price Illegal, says European Court of Justice

[Mr Rational]

ARBD rehab unit.

[Mortar Bored]

I am on my phone just now but go and look at the historical graph of taxation v consumption relating to Tobacco in South Africa. The correlation would suggest that you are wide of the mark.

I'm also on my phone, but I will certainly check the statistics. Now, can you answer my point? Do you believe minimum unit pricing will assist in the alcohol culture we have at present?

[strichener]

I'm also on my phone, but I will certainly check the statistics. Now, can you answer my point? Do you believe minimum unit pricing will assist in the alcohol culture we have at present?

I think it will assist. It won't eradicate it, that is a certainty, but I honestly think that it will help. I would even go as far as to say that the proposed minimum price is not high enough.

Even if we can get people to drink the same quantity but lower ABVs then we are on the right track. I know from my trips to Norway that many of the locals are beer only unless they managed to get some spirits at the duty free and even then they do not binge on it.

ETA: Link to study that links price and consumption> And another from the World Health Organisation

Also graph I mentioned earlier

[Thumper]

No one is forced to purchase alcohol, there are plenty of alternatives. If you are driven to poverty due to your alcohol consumption then you really should be re-evaluating your priorities.

Replace "alcohol" with your choice of plebian alternatives (Sky TV, microwave curries, bread, clean water). There are two types of people in favour of this: ignorant snobs and evil snobs.

[strichener]

Replace "alcohol" with your choice of plebian alternatives (Sky TV, microwave curries, bread, clean water). There are two types of people in favour of this: ignorant snobs and evil snobs.

Last time I checked microwave curries did not cause people to commit crime or violence against themselves or others. Your original argument was that taxing alcohol is regressive however optional taxation is neither progressive nor regressive if avoidable.

ETA: Noticed that you didn't refer to taxation at all. Makes your original statement even more bizarre.

[gc_smfc]

We really should be looking to price poor people out of everything, so we can have a nicer Scotland.

[Alert Mongoose]

Fairly certain there is a direct correlation between pricing (albiet via taxation) and the obvious decrease in smoking in the UK.

[EdgarusQPFC]

ImageUploadedByPie & Bovril1450866960.239001.jpg

Just seen that. ^

I'm as big as an SNP fan boy as there is but I really don't agree with them here, people need educated, trying to put them off/stop them due to cost isn't the right way to go surely?

I think thats easier said than done. Drinking is a big problem here and i think the media doesnt do that any real favors

[sophia]

Nah.

I knew you wouldn't because it chimes with your liberal SNPbad shtick.

I would explain what we should do to resolve this situation but given that I've consumed a bottle of cheap Aldi wine, I think I've lost the will.

[Mr Bairn]

If they want to do so on a desert island then fine, the issue is that alcohol does not only affect the person consuming it. Your last two sentences show how stupid you can be at times. To equate excessive drinking with fun is exactly why Scotland has an alcohol problem.

Who else does it affect?

Excessive drinking is very fun. Very few things better at the weekend than getting a bottle of vodka, having your mates round, get absolutely shitfaced, few drinking games, tactical chunder in the loo, taxi into town, hit up the club, few jagerbombs, a dance and see if you can pull a bird or two.

[Miguel Sanchez]

Who else does it affect?

Excessive drinking is very fun. Very few things better at the weekend than getting a bottle of vodka, having your mates round, get absolutely shitfaced, few drinking games, tactical chunder in the loo, taxi into town, hit up the club, few jagerbombs, a dance and see if you can pull a bird or two.

There are times when your trolling can be too obvious.

[Mr Rational]

Who else does it affect?

Excessive drinking is very fun. Very few things better at the weekend than getting a bottle of vodka, having your mates round, get absolutely shitfaced, few drinking games, tactical chunder in the loo, taxi into town, hit up the club, few jagerbombs, a dance and see if you can pull a bird or two.

[Baxter Parp]

As a nation how can we have the skills to thrive and prosper in an independent country when the government doesn't credit us with being able to cope with strong alcoholic drink.

We clearly fucking can't.

[Baxter Parp]

Nah.

Do you write for the Scotsman?

[NotThePars]

Who else does it affect?

Excessive drinking is very fun. Very few things better at the weekend than getting a bottle of vodka, having your mates round, get absolutely shitfaced, few drinking games, tactical chunder in the loo, taxi into town, hit up the club, few jagerbombs, a dance and see if you can pull a bird or two.

Playing drinking games the surest sign you have to be a VL yet.

[Ad Lib]

To be fair to Sturgeon she's correctly hit back at the misreporting on this.

The Inner House of the Court of Session referred, broadly-speaking, two questions to the ECJ for determination in order to allow them to deal with the case in domestic law. They asked:

1. Does this measure restrict the free movement of goods within the meaning contained in the Treaty?

2. Could MAP be considered a "disporportionate" interference within the meaning of EU law, having regard to the potential existence of alternative measures equally or better able to achieve the public interest objectives, whilst restricting FMOG to a lesser extent?

The ECJ basically said 1. Yes and 2. In principle, possibly, but you would have to show how those alternative measures would in fact achieve the same ends to at least the same extent whilst less distorting FMOG.

It is now for the Inner House to look at whether taxation alternatives are in fact able to achieve the same ends, and this is a largely empirical question.

There is, however, a second issue, and one on which it is not yet clear as a matter of European jurisprudence. The question is not just one of whether there were less intrusive alternatives available. The question is also "to whom" must they be available. One reading is that the alternative measures must be available to the member-state, i.e. to the UK. It then would not matter that the Scottish Government did not have the power to pursue a taxation-based alternative; the UK can, so MAP is disproportionate.

The other reading, which no doubt the Scottish Government will attempt to argue, is that the proportionality test as to less intrusive alternatives should take into account, to some extent, the constitutional arrangements of the member state. The fact that Holyrood is competent in public health, the nature of the objective, but not in the otherwise most proportionate means to resolve the issue, taxation, fudges what is and is not open to them.

It is not altogether clear how this final question will be dealt with. The majority (4-3) in the UK Supreme Court appeared in a relatively recent case involving Rotherham Borough Council and some other English councils (in relation to the distribution of European Structural funds) to suggest that constitutional division of functions was a legitimate consideration in the discharge of duties under the EU treaties, which might bolster the Scottish Government's argument a little bit. But the factual background is different and in that case they were dealing with the principle of "equality" in relation to a specific duty on member-states to act under a Directive, rather than the principle of "proportionality" in relation to a lawful interference of a general negative obligation under the Treaties.

[Mr Bairn]

The only thing this is going to achieve is to price poor people out of nights out

[Fotbawmad]

The only thing this is going to achieve is to price poor people out of nights out

It's not about stopping anyone; it's about limiting consumption. Whatever you tax you get less of; whatever you subsidize you get more of.

[Mr Bairn]

It's not about stopping anyone; it's about limiting consumption. Whatever you tax you get less of; whatever you subsidize you get more of.

Brilliant, subsidize alcohol IMO

[strichener]

Brilliant, subsidize alcohol IMO

Yours already is.