Dutch courage
Time was it took a certain degree of political courage - possibly fortified by the Dutch variety - to tax the workers' beer.
But tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. Today MSPs, some of them lodging caveats, agreed to .
Defending the change, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was in notably combative form. He told one Labour MSP that her particular complaint was βtotal baloneyβ.
So whatβs happening? In future, instead of the present fixed, limited fee for all pubs and shops, licensed premises will pay a variable rate for obtaining a licence.
Smaller premises would pay Β£800, the big places up to Β£2,000. In addition, there are annual renewal fees.
And why the fuss? The licensed trade complains that the fees are much higher than anticipated - and warns that .
The nature of the ministerβs response is intriguing. Far from offering sympathy - or even pretending to sound emollient - he placed his decision firmly in the context of wider efforts to tackle the negative consequences of alcohol.
He said, bluntly: βThose who profit from the sale of alcohol have a responsibility to help pay for the costs.β
The new fee structure will now cover the full cost of the licensing system. Selling booze, he argued, was a privilege, not a right. That privilege comes with a cost. Today at Holyrood that cost increased.
I'm 
Comments
Is this the first SNP stealth tax?
So what about charging the supermarkets more for their licences since it is their cheap alcohol offers that are fuelling the drinking epidemic?
It appears to me this increase is a roundabout way of tackling Scotlands alcohol problem. Being seen to do again, is the order of the day. Macaskill has stuck his head in the sand, it appears he is scared of our youth and their families.
Oh the times they are a changin.....
I don't see this as either roundabout or unfair. Apparently, the licensing system costs more to run than it gathers in fees.
Thus, my (and everyone elses) taxes are paying for pubs to get higher profits. That's not on. Moreover, my taxes already pay for the scum of society (not that everyone who frequents a pub is scum, obviously) to get fixed up in the hospital after their little soirΓ©e, then banged up in the nick once they're declared fit to stand trial. Why should I also foot the bill for them to get tanked-up in the first place?
And to the publicans who are whinging and moaning about extra fees they should have already been paying: cry me a river. A good pub will take a grand on a friday night. Sure that's not a grand in profit, but over the space of a year I'm certain they can afford it. If this means a few down-and-out ned drinking pits have to close, good. Less places for the will-power impaired youth of today to go get ratted.
Now all we need is a limiting on the off-licence trade, particularly supermarkets, and we're sorted. Don't get me wrong, I like a drink as much as the next sane person. I don't go out and get drunk though, nor do I then proceed to smash up the toon. And I, for one, don't even mind a staggeringly huge amount if it's a little harder to get alcohol from Tesco's, or if the price of a pint goes up slightly, in order that the kind of morons who do go out and smash the toon up can't do so with such an alarming frequency.
Congratulations to Kenny MacAskill and the SNP for having the courage to begin the fight to rescue Scotland from it's crippling alcohol obsession. The initial posters' complaints are akin to those who criticise the council tax freeze as being not good enough - surely even the most hardened Labour supporter would concede it takes time to reverse established political precedent and that our minority administration are - once again - successfully pulling the train to a hault before (they hope) turning it in the opposite direction.
Of all the SNP's ministers, I didn't rate MacAskill back in June but I must confess to have been pleasantly surprised by him. In these days of international politics and supra-national decision making structures, there isn't all that much local parliamentarians can actually do, but addressing our alcohol problem is probably the best thing a Scottish Parliament can achieve. Hopefully this is the start of the process, rather than the end.
I hope, too, that the opposition parties, and indeed the media, can lay their allegiances to one side on this issue and get right behind the Government as they seek to tackle this. If they want to show the public that they genuinely care about people and not just about regaining power for the sake of it, then I think it's a must.
It's all fair and well saying a pub can 'take a grand' on a Friday night. The big profits at the weekend cover the big losses made during the week, then there are the additional wages to pay in order to have enough staff to 'take a grand.' Little pubs that are saved by their 'regulars' like most are here in Dumfries will not be able to survive if they take the brunt for people's bad behaviour. After an under-age drinking prevention scheme it's shown that in this area it is the off-licences and supermarkets that are letting the town down. It's those that get 'tanked up' on cheap booze at home and then go into the pubs that cause trouble. Many pubs have staff that are active in diffusing any situation that may lead to trouble. Why should these good workers be punished by losing their jobs thanks to the Scottish Goverment?
"Is this the SNP's first stealth tax?" Well, if it is it's not very, well, stealthy. Assuming that the function of this increase is to cover the cost of licencing system then this move seems fair and reasonable. And if a pub can't affored Β£800 to Β£2,000 per annum then it isn't a viable business.
oh what a shame, some pubs might close.
WE NEED LESS PUBS, NOT MORE!!!
I couldnt care less if these changes make some of these parasitical establishments close.. all the better in my view.
I enjoy a drink as much as anyone else but there are WAY too many licences being granted nowadays and the state of our city centres show the obvious result of this.
Yes, supermarkets share some blame and should no doubt face similar legislation, but there is no doubt that licenced premises should bear the cost.
Its about time these chancers in the bar/booze trade took some responsibility.
This is good sense and for that there should be no apologies. It's time we shared out the burden of Scotland's problem with the bevie. Those that profit from the havoc and misery that the drinking culture causes should shell out that bit more.
If the licensing system is too expensive to run it would seem like sense to reduce the costs of the licensing system.
Thats a bit much for MacAskill to understand. More jobs gone more pubs shut.
I have not seen one sensible item from the SNP since they were voted into power.
regards
#2
It is the convenience stores that sell booze to under-age youths - the supermarkets might not be everybody's favourite companies but they are v strict about selling to under-age people. The average corner shop either has less scruples or the owner knows that without police prtection he has no choice but to say 'Yes'
May i just 'Amen' to the comment No 5
I heard a publican on Radio Scotland complaining that the new rules would cost him Β£280 for ?, Β£1100 for a licence, AND Β£2000 for his legal fees! Why doesn't he get a new lawyer instead of complaining about the licence?
I agree mostly with Math Campbell, and with the principle that polluter pays. I hope however that Councils WILL use the money for extra policing in alchol hotspots.
In fairness to the licensed trade they are not arguing that the system should not be self funding rather that it should be based on turnover rather than rateable value. it is the system that places a disproportionate cost on smaller operators who have a 10th of the business of the big guy and yet they are paying half of the fees that they are.
it's a variable tax,it will have little or no effect on people's drinking habits' ,the idea that this will help tackle underage drinking and alcoholic issues,is just plan drunken daftness!
Strange for a potential "stealth-tax" to be publicly announced in advance, debated in parliament, then win support accross the partisan divide and eventually passed with all the attendent press coverage! So many REAL Westminster, Gordon Brown inspired stealth-taxes recieved none of the above.
Put it like this: Β£800 extra a year in a tiny pub open 6 days a week would mean the operator would need to take an additional Β£2.66 a day (800 divided by 6 divided by 50). Say an average of 30 customers a day - a truly tiny pub! - would mean 9p per customer per day (2.66 divided by 30). That is of course divided up again between the individual drinks bought by any one customer on any particular day. This is nothing when you consider the trade of even the local village pub! Also, does anyone honestly believe that the publicans will not pass this rise on to their loyal customers in full (with a little bit on top for good measure)?
'Those who profit from the sale of alcohol have a responsibility to help pay for the costs' - so just how much should Buckfast Abbey be charged - nothing?
this is not the way to takle drunks (mainly the yobs of today) like drivers to young cause more accicdents on the road its the older educated (which these young ones aint) who are cauing the problems. pubs will close and jobs lost because of this ..the smoking ban has hit hard enough in small places this is the nail in the coffin now you will see more trouble in towns. when are you going to stop telling us what we can and cannot do. one day I hope we will fight back.
"He said, bluntly: βThose who profit from the sale of alcohol have a responsibility to help pay for the costs.β"
Really? Like the Treasury for example?
What is it about Scotland (and the rest oft he UK) that - despite high taxes and strict licensing and consumption laws - makes us different from other countries like France? These countries have a far more liberal approach to alcohol, and yet they don't have tabloid terror stories of the dreaded 'binge'.
Perhaps when we've tried everything else, we start to look at the possibility that maybe it's our draconian approach that is the problem. Lets just hope this happens before we reach prohibition (which didn't work either).
Whilst I recognise there is a problem that needs addressed, perhaps this 'one-size-fits-all' approach is more of a headline grabber, and less of a well-thought-out policy.
So soon after the smoking ban, parochial publicans deserve a great deal more sympathy than what they are getting from Mr MacAskill. His logic may make sense when dealing with wealthy chain pubs, but it only paves the way for their monopoly when a consequence of this policy is small local pubs going out of business.
Governance is going wrong when a majority are punished for the crimes of a minority.
Pubs make money from selling a legalised drug that costs the economy millions.
Why is it wrong to insist they cover the cost of licensing ?
Who pays for late night police, ambulances and 24 hour hospitals ?
The way I see it they are getting off lightly at Β£2000 per year considering the potential profits.
Why shouldn't they pay, they cost a fortune in extra policing ,extra medical care, lost work, street violence domestic violence; they aint paying half enough!
Brian's turning into a latter day Latin Bob Dylan - will we see him with Dylan-esque cue cards outside Holyrood on this one I wonder?
So the times have changed and we with them, but perhaps Brian Taylor should not assume all of us understand Latin (sadly) and therefore any future references to Latin should at least contain an English variant so we can all appreciate his elevated position on life and the universe.
While I aplaud the maths that PMK (post 17) has carried out there are many small rural pubs providing a centre to a community who will struggle to get the 30 customers a day that are alluded to.
I have had experience from both behind the bar and in front of it and can confirm that in many cases the people who are refused entry to licensed premises, having had a "little" drink in the house, are that ones who cause trouble and this then gets blamed on the licensed premises involved as the trouble "always seems to come from the pub".
So why not base the licence application fee on the quantity of alcohol sold and include the supermarkets and corner shops in this fee structure.
This may be seen as a fairer scheme even if the shops do not generally have to deal with the results of their sales.
Ric Flair said:-
"I hope, too, that the opposition parties, and indeed the media, can lay their allegiances to one side on this issue and get right behind the Government as they seek to tackle this."
Come on Ric-get real! This is Scotland-remember?
We (sorry -the numpty parties) don't "do" "lay allegiances to one side."
Labour DETEST the SNP-name me ONE THING since May where they have put allegiances to one side?
I'm dissapointed about this. If the SNP are serious about tackling Scotlands' binge drinking culture I'd rather have seen them sitting around a table and coming up with a long term strategy. This will only redirect drinkers to the supermarkets.
I think an education programme in Scotlands' Schools to warn of the dangers of binge drinking is the best way of dealing with health issues. It'll take a while to filter through, I accept that, but it's better than this.
The knee-jerk reaxtion of Kenny MacAskil is getting tiring. The SNP is a strong government but Mr MacAskil is the weakest link in that otherwise strong chain.
He wants to stop 'promotions' of Alcohol in supermarkets. No more buy one get one free offers, bet that had the breweries worried. How long did it take him to come up with that? Over a pint perhaps? And now this.
This is ill conceived and hope the SNP realise NOW that Taxation is NOT a solution to anything. I get ripped off for anything remotely connected to motoring but I still have a car.
I hope wee Ec drops Mr M soon, he's beoming a liability.
Yours
A Nat, Nat bashing.
Anyone explain to me how this is going to tackle the country's drinking problem? I can see how it will make more money but what difference is that going to make? A few more police on the streets? I'm sure everyone, including licensees would welcome that but that's not tackling the problem, it's just putting more resources into cleaning up afterwards.
If the governemnt really wanted to act effectively they would ban all alcohol advertising. This wouldn't harm your quiet local pub, serving the community but would help decrease the allure of alcohol.
Stealth tax? Yes.
If the licensing system currently only covers 63% of its cost, why is a minimum increase of 400% needed? This is clearly not about covering the cost of the licensing system.
Doing something for the sake of being seen to do something?
Yes!
Anyone able to explain how this is going to tackle this nation's drink problems? Let's be honest, its not is it? It's an empty gesture that has immediate and visual impact but no actual effect. Don't kid yourself that the added income will pay for extra policing to make you feel safer, the money it makes is going to be needed to pay for all the extra admin costs and licensing officers required for the new system.
If the governement wanted to do something other than make more money why doesn't it ban all alcohol advertising? Anyone doubt that this would be more effective than simply putting the cost of running a pub up?
I am not supporter of the nats, but putting the price of licenses up a bit seems to me to be a good thing to do. However, it really has to be part of an overall package.
We want to encourage things like cafes and places to meet which dont include alcohol as the whole purpose.
Perhaps the flip side of the licensing money should be to spend it on reducing the rates for cafes?
Can i just point out that this doesnt just apply to pubs, clubs and offlicenses, but also to restaurants and cafes? The way the new licensing law is going to work, every member of staff who is going to serve alcohol has to go through a (very costly) training scheme. This isnt going to be do-able by lots of small businesses! So next time you're at a restaurant and the glass of wine you're having with lunch has gone up a few quid, this is why. Or better yet - maybe they wont be able to afford to sell wine at all! These arent the places encouraging binge drinking, so why are they being punished, effectively? The usual sledgehammer to crack a nut policies, its complete nonsense.
Why is it when there is incredibly high levels of tax on alcohol already do people then say that no one is paying for the extra policing and hospital work, booze pumps massive amounts of money into the economy, people go out and spend the wage and put it straight back into the economy, at a time where there are major worries there you dont want to put people off spending more money.
In Western Australia licence fees are levied at 2.5% of gross purchases.
This means the fee is directly proportional to sales so smaller pubs are not burdened with a fixed high fee.
The large 'beer barns' must pay a lot more for their high turnover to offset higher policing costs.
Also many more conditions and responsibilities are placed upon the licencees. This has limited the disgusting late night scenes now so prevalent everywhere in the UK.
How about this for an idea. John Swinney freezes Council Tax. Local Authorities are prevented from jacking up thir annual take from us, so Kenny Macaskill says " never mind, we'll get you some cash by the back door". He increases pub licence fees, which will go to Local Authorities. Bingo!!. Trouble is; I don't trust anyone, least of all politicians!
"Those that profit should pay" commendable sentiment indeed, so how much is the british government going to pay? considering they take the highest proportion of "profit" in duty
I applaud the SNP for this (and I detest them!) - tackling the binge culture of Scotland is way overdue. However this must be only the first step of many. We need to drastically change our whole attitude to alcohol to encourage responsible drinking.
We need many more policies to make alcohol consumption less attractive to all - not just the young, and then our nation will benefit as a whole.
Those who doubt the Scottish prediliction for a dram or five might wonder why that great Scottish phrase - 'the bendy toy' - has no equivelent elsehere in the UK.
Looks like the SNP Government are following Labour's lead. Let's try and make money out of everything.
Perhaps Mr MacAskill would care to explain why countries with the cheapest alcohol and most liberal laws with regard to supply have no problems such as those witnessed here. His knee jerk reaction suggests he is more concerned with raising revenue than solving problems. This measure will do nothing to stop the type of issues society faces.
For years the licensed trade have taken the money and supplied the drink; we have all seen people who are clearly drunk being served even more drink, either to continue to increase profit or to avoid confrontation by refusing to sell further to an individual or group of individuals who have clearly had enough.
Having reaped their profits how the licensed trade show their commitment to the society in which they are located, they push them out of their premises, slamming the door behind them leaving those unfortunate to live in that locality to all that is not savoury from those who have over imbibed.
Long overdue is this move to financially charge those who for years have taken the money, increased the problems for society when their only additional contribution is to sit back and attempt to distance themselves from the problem.
When controlled drugs are supplied to individuals it is the dealers that are targeted; when we consider the uncontrolled drug, alcohol, with the exception of the age control of the purchaser, we should equally be prepared to charge the irresponsible dealers who are guilty of oversupply; this action may well make these dealers of alcohol sit up and take note especially if there is the threat of an increase in charges if the cost to society is not reduced.
If pubs shut it will be because the public choose not to support these establishments based on the facilities available and the charges made with little or no value added to justify paying the surcharges of the licensed trade.
Trying to get my head round this as I thought that there was a 'sliding scale' for the licences, but some folk think there is not. At the moment, what is paid for the right to sell a 'drug' is ridiculously low and to lose a licence rarely happens. Licences should be subject to enforcing conditions (like not having folk leaving so drunk they cannot walk and selling under-age!) and if these are flouted, loss of the privilege follows. If they are having to pay more, they are not going to lose that dosh. And can someone clarify please? Surely off-licenses are also included in this as they too need a licence? Rigourous conditions there too please.
Certainly license fees should at least go up to cover the costs of the pub trade administration, however in most pubs antisocial behaviour is not allowed and a police crack down on pubs selling alcohol to already inebriated customers would soon sort anti social behaviour spilling onto our streets at closing time.
The big deal here is what do we do about the extremely cheap booze in the supermarkets which fuel most of the alcohol related health, violence and social problems. Very little it seems as the major retailers have a much stronger lobbying (cheque book)position than the lowly pub landlord.
Pubs will put up theyre prices, more people will drink cheaper booze in the unregulated smoking zone that is their home. Larger measures will be poured, more cigarretes consumed.
Were setting up a health and social timebomb here people.
#29 - for one thing the kind of ban you propose (on alcohol advertising) is a reserved matter.
Who put the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill in charge of Economic matters?. Are these `OUTRAGES` levels of increases really being levied for the reasons stated by MacAskill, or is it a way of funding the extra policemen they must employ in order to guarantee Tory support for their Budget?.
MacAskill is behaving like some insane Roman Emperor.
First and foremost I AGREE that there is a problem with the abuse of alcohol, BUT this is not down to the public bars, clubs and hotels that serve alcohol to the general public. I lay the blame fair and square at the doors of THE SUPERMARKETS. I am 42 and I have nearly killed myself through alcohol and eventhough I still drink I KNOW my limits.
Think of this situation an 18yr old has only Β£10.00 on their person, do they go to a pub and get on average 4 pints or do they go to the local "ADCOSONS" and get 48 cans on cheap lager and sit at home on in some park somewhere and drink until they pass out or decide that they feel like taking on the world. This is NOT down to a pub getting or letting them get to this state it is down to a very powerful Cartel of Supermarkets that our NEW GOVERNMENT has not got nerve to upset nor take on.
The Minister has not even given consideration to just how many people will end up unemployed and JUST what problems that will cause.
Other than the fact that he knows just what it is like to arrested for drunkeness he is being blinded by a narrowmined view of what is best to deal with a problem that has been around ever since alcohol was first drank!
Alcohol Focus (Scotland) state the following:
Alcohol problems cost Scotland an estimated Β£1.1 billion per year in terms of the NHS, social work, police, emergency services, and the wider economic and human costs. Alcohol misuse not only affects the health and welfare of the individual drinker, but also has a major impact on family relationships, communities and society as a whole.
NHS Alcohol Statistics (Scotland)2005 (link below) state the following:
fhttps://www.alcoholinformation.isdscotland.org/alcohol_misuse/files/AlcoholStatisticsScotland2005.pd
This discussion has been going on for a number of years in our parliament,thankfully the SNP have acted and in doing so they have secured my vote.
Wansanshoo.