Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


War of blame over whisky jobs

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 July 2009
SCOTTISH ministers were accused yesterday of "taking their eye off the ball" over the expected closure of the Johnnie Walker plant whisky plant with the loss of 700 jobs.
As politicians from Labour and the SNP met drinks firm Diageo yesterday about the future of its Kilmarnock operation, a political storm blew up over who was to blame.

Local Labour MP Des Browne, the former Scottish secretary, accused SNP Scottish
ministers of "taking their eye off the ball".

But the SNP accused him of turning an issue of cross-party concern into a political football.

Mr Browne claimed that the reorganisation of Scottish Enterprise in 2007 had led to a "completely unco-ordinated approach" in trying to save jobs.

He said that when Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government had been made aware of Diageo's review they should have expected the possible closure of one or more of its operations and put together a business plan to save them.

After he met senior representatives of the firm yesterday he was promised that the local council, employees, union representatives and local politicians would be given a chance to put together a business plan to save the Kilmarnock plant.

"That's exactly what Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government should have done in the first place," he said.

He added: "I am confident that the workforce, the local council, and with help from the Scottish Government, we can get our act together in the same timescale."

Mr Browne is due to visit workers today with SNP finance secretary John Swinney. But there is anger that Mr Browne had suggested Scottish Enterprise had been discussing the closure with Diageo and not told ministers until the 11th hour.

All parties have denied this, with Diageo stating that it told employees of its plans first.

Mr Salmond also spoke to Diageo chief executive Paul Walsh yesterday and secured guarantees the firm was committed to a genuine consultation that would consider alternative proposals, particularly concerning the Kilmarnock operation.

A source close to Mr Salmond added: "It is astonishing that Des Browne, when his constituency is facing a major jobs challenge, should choose to make political points. Our concern is with the 700 jobs at risk in Kilmarnock – Des Browne's concern seems to be with his own job."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 July 2009 12:07 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Scotsman Whisky
 
1

,

02/07/2009 22:06:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

redcliffe62,

03/07/2009 01:27:46
so the story could be "drinks giant confirms local labour mp has lied about discussions with scottish government"
or "browne blames snp for loss of jobs, despite company confirming they were telling employees first"
not quite as good in the editorial room as the old title of salmond accused, clearly barking headline that one, and now pitched as war of blame. nobody of any political persuasion in scotland can seriously believe if salmond had known about this that he would not have been fighting in the workers corner.
3

redcliffe62,

03/07/2009 01:29:24
mr space, all this talk about poo and front bottoms reminds me of another poster; same orofice and foecal commentary, different name.
4

Wolf of Badenoch,

03/07/2009 01:41:26
I thought Labour already knew they were on to a loser trying to pretend that Alex Salmond and the Scottish Government do not put Scotland first priority each and every time unlike Labour who are beholden to London so as to ensure the Union always takes superior position.
I guess though Labour were never that bright so no great surprise. If the Labour party bothered to actually have a Scottish Labour party then they might have a chance of being taken a wee bit more seriously, but as it is they are not even allowed to create their own political party in Scotland, all rather pathetic.
5

Fletty73,

Stirling 03/07/2009 02:08:58
Call me an old fashioned sceptic, but...

Im guessing this plant is not closing down.

The whole thing is a Peter Mandelson idea to get some popularity back for Labour.

I.e. In a couple of dyas time you are going to see Des Brown & Mandy all over the media saying how they have managed to negotiate a deal to save jobs.

Union dividend, blah blah

Just a stitch up......
6

donald,

glasgow 03/07/2009 06:40:58
is Lord Guinness going to be arrested?
7

Rabhairt,

AUSTRALIA 03/07/2009 07:22:59
#1 WE MAY HAVE BEEN IN A 12 YEAR DROUGHT HERE DOWNUNDER BUT I DID NOT COME DOWN IN THE LAST RAINSTORM.
8

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 03/07/2009 07:54:10
Stop bickering and sort this mess, now!
9

Luigiana,

Aberdeen 03/07/2009 09:48:23
I find the idea of something so scottish as Johnny Walker being owned by a foreign company to be wholly repugnant. It was bound to end in tears

Diageo should never have been allowed to get its grubby paws on this company - the union dividend?
10

Darien,

Panama 03/07/2009 10:11:44
As usual the BritNat press attack the SNP. The reality of this story is rather different.

FM Salmond let Diageo know in no uncertain terms that what they are suggesting is totally unacceptable. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8130165.stm

Meanwhile Lord Mandelson simply says this is a consequence of the global economy (and tough luck for Kilmarnock) but he cannot do anything about it. Maybe Des Browne has not yet heard the message from London New Labour HQ. Maybe Des Browne is just worried his union support from that plant might dissapear.

On the issue of tax, we should remember the excessive duties and regular duty increases regularly imposed by HM Treasury on Scotch whisky, which by the way is the UK's no. 1 food&drink export. Whisky has always been discriminated against by successive British governments at Westminster.

It is really rather easy to see who stands up for Scotland; it aint New Labour or Tory, and it aint Westminster. An independent Scotland is needed to ensure key industries like whisky develop properly, to avoid being fleeced by London, and to ensure multinational corps don't simply do as they please with Scotland's unique resources. Scotch whisky is far more than a company brand; it is an important Scottish national product and needs to be better protected by the nation and people of Scotland.
11

TWC,

exLabour 03/07/2009 10:19:33
Why don't we tell the Diagio people to stop using the the Scottish reference on their product.

This is the slippery slope to buk ship to india and bottling in Mumbai.

Let's take them on now. Johnny Walker is off the shopping list
12

frank mcbride,

lusitania 03/07/2009 10:22:42
Des Browne is a well-known teller of untruths as his time as Defence Secretary clearly shows.

How many times did he have to apologise for misleading Parliament, and the people?
13

Black Sabbath,

03/07/2009 10:23:29
#13 this is protectionist drivel.

#15 The SNP is going to raise the price of Scotch whisky.

Scottish politics is all about tax and ban and the politicians of all parties are the problem, not the solution, with this case.
14

Black Sabbath,

03/07/2009 10:25:48
#16 Total pig ignorance.

Diageo own many distilleries. Legally, whisky must be made and matured in Scotland to be called Scotch.

Diageo might be shutting a bottling plant and closing a grain distillery but they are not going to relocate whisky production to India.

Get your facts right, you idiot.
15

Rob Royston,

03/07/2009 10:28:17
9 Fletty73,

Your scepticism is in line with my own thoughts. I heard Des Browne on the radio this morning and thought, it's another BVT spin. That was before I read your comment.

Your perception may prove to have been quite correct.
16

TWC,

exLabour 03/07/2009 10:53:24
19 Black Sabbath,

Well Des Browne seemed to think it a possibility this morning on GMS

There is no telling what you can do Bells moved their bottling to England at one time.

Just like Beef categories they can be manipulated.

BTW your closed mind shows you are the idiot aswell as your name.

Grow up and debate instead of name calling

17

frank mcbride,

lusitania 03/07/2009 11:11:01
#18, BS.

Minimum pricing will have no effect on the price of whisky as it already costs above the minimum unit cost.

Why do you feel you must lie in defence of your position?
18

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 03/07/2009 11:21:29
Diageo should have given the Scottish Government reasonable notice, not leaving it to the last minute. That way at least something could have been done to try and mitigate the circumstances of job losses. If Des Browne really cares about his constituents jobs then he'll work with the Scottish Government to try and save them. I suspect he's more interested in scoring political points.
19

Nikostratos,,

03/07/2009 11:49:51
Bit of a contradiction from the snp(as ever) they are trying to make alcohol more expensive and used a lot less.

And in fact wish to use legislation to achieve their stated aim which will ultimately lead to the lose of Jobs to the sellers and producers of alcohol.

and then they climb on their high horse to shout(they never discuss or debate) Claiming they are for the Scottish peoples and will protect their Jobs.

They are hypocrites if they were being true to their alcohol policy they would rejoice in the lose of a maker of a chemical which is poisoning the Scottish people.

#17 Frank mcbride

flim flammerry from frank.......and he knows it
20

TWC,

exLabour 03/07/2009 12:16:18
24 Nikostratos,,
It won't affect whisky. Only ckeap drink so it has nothing to do with this thread.
21

lachlan,

03/07/2009 12:43:30
ah i see. jobs losses (whisky) snp to blame.jobs saved labour (ships).
by the way are some of the whisky jobs not going to fife.
22

frank mcbride,

lusitania 03/07/2009 12:45:28
#24, Niko.

Why does your reply to me contain the same lie which I objected to?

Is, or is not, whisky currently priced at 40p/unit?

Why do you require lies to support your argument?
23

Sgian Achlais,

03/07/2009 13:18:06
#27 Frank

A Union built on lies surely requires policies and statements build on lies.

They must maintain consistence.
24

Sgian Achlais,

03/07/2009 13:22:20
I too listened to Desperate Browne on the Radio this morning and I do not know what what worse.

The lies he was telling or the BBC fawning all over him. Letting him answer every question in full with no interuptions and then not pulling him up on basic party political propoganda with no basis in truth.

Compare that to the treatment of Swinney.

The Unionist Broadcasting Corportation need to take a serious look at themselves. They were once a global leader. Now they are just Labour puppets.
25

TWC,

exLabour 03/07/2009 13:27:54
29 Sgian Achlais,

Yes it was Gary Robertson but he was ok when he started out but he must have had a lecture about who controls the money
26

Geomac 1,

Scotland 03/07/2009 13:48:13
Maybe our "wonderful" politicians should tell us what they are going to do to help the economy of the country - private companies are taking necessary action to improve their individual economies!!!
Politicians jumping up and down and slagging off each other is not only demeaning but will not help the situation one jot.
27

TWC,

exLabour 03/07/2009 13:58:54
31 Geomac 1,

I've only heard Desperate Browne slagging but I've come to expect that from Scottish Labour.

More like one hand clapping.
28

mad world,

03/07/2009 14:34:17
The SNP are hilarious...

There going to put the price up on alcohol as a deterrent but want to sell more of it abroad..

They want Scotland to be greener that green, one would assume to stop burning fossil fuels yet want to sell oil to the rest of the world.

Slight case of double standards appearing here, the only thing i agree with them on is a need for a referendum..

And have you noticed they always say they are going to demand this or demand that from Westminster or non Scottish companies.. It plays well to the Scots but i fear in the long run is going to cost Scotland.. The SNP sound protectionist in so many ways that the end result may be business moving elsewhere..
29

Eve,

Scotland 03/07/2009 14:35:49
The blame over whisky jobs is the organisation Diageo.

I think it's ridiculous that 700 jobs are to go and be replace by what was it 300 jobs elsewhere.

Apparently those being made redundant can go in work in the site that they are expanding on. If they where hyprofictaly to fill all the new places in that manner. Then the Labour MP of MSP that was on the radio saying he thought it was good new for the constancy would be completely and utterly guilt of jumping to conclusions.

Save the Jobs. There's all read at least 200 people applying for every job in some areas of Scotland.

I'm glad that Alex Samlond was on the radio saying that he'd do anything thats in his power to try and revers the dission to axe these jobs.

30

Geomac 1,

Scotland 03/07/2009 14:54:02
#32 mad world. When you write "And have you noticed they always say they are going to demand this or demand that from Westminster or non Scottish companies.. It plays well to the Scots but i fear in the long run is going to cost Scotland.. The SNP sound protectionist in so many ways that the end result may be business moving elsewhere.." you are so so right. And I could not balme industry for leaving. A.S. needs to show a more statemanlike and professional attitude. This constant whinging is tiresome and negative.
#33 Eve
No-one likes jobs to be lost but politicians should stop giving the impression that they create actual jobs (ex public service) - politicians are responsible for creating the environment within which jobs can be created and maintained!!
31

Eve,

Scotland 03/07/2009 15:57:03
#35 Geomac 1: Employers are cutting back on employee because it expensive to run business here because the price of living has went up 10 time quicker than min wage over the years.

If only there was a way to bring down the cost of living that would stop a lot of jobs leaveing this country. As it would bring down the price of rates and material that organizations need. Unfortunately I don't think it's all that possible, but a girl can dream.

Also I don't think anyone should be earning more or much more than £50,000 a year. Especially when these same company axes jobs of people who don't earn any where near as much.

It's these ridiculous 6 figure sums earners that burger everything up! Theres more to live than loads of money.
32

TWC,

exLabour 03/07/2009 16:06:31
Business won't move if they have to answer to Scotland, that doesn't necessarily mean Independence but if we control Corporation tax and spend in Scotland we can influence the companies.

Diageo would do everything in one country if it could.

Sacking people is easier in Scotland than it is in France. We need to protect our jobs the same way other countries do.
33

Black Sabbath,

03/07/2009 16:25:16
#20 "There is no telling what you can do Bells moved their bottling to England at one time.

BTW your closed mind shows you are the idiot aswell as your name.

Grow up and debate instead of name calling"

Why don#t you get your facts right instead of spouting pig ignorance. Scotch has to be distilled and matured in Scotland and your post has no factual contact in it.

And what's idiotic about Black Sabbath? Nothing, You are the idiot.
34

Black Sabbath,

03/07/2009 16:25:54
"21 frank mcbride,lusitania 03/07/2009 11:11:01
#18, BS.

Minimum pricing will have no effect on the price of whisky as it already costs above the minimum unit cost.

Why do you feel you must lie in defence of your position"

Shop's own brand whisky is not above the unit price.

I have facts to back me up, bozo.
35

Wolf of Badenoch,

03/07/2009 16:54:21
The latest news on this is -

"Talks between Diageo and Scotland's first minister Alex Salmond over the drinks giant's proposal to cut 10% of its workforce in the country have been constructive, the firm said."

http://www.just-drinks.com/article.aspx?id=97723

It would appear Alex Salmond is again putting Scotland's needs above all others as his top priority and in the words of Lord Foulkes I suspect he is doing it deliberately.
36

Geomac 1,

Scotland 03/07/2009 17:44:33
#36 Eve
You say "Employers are cutting back on employee because it expensive to run business here because the price of living has went up 10 time quicker than min wage over the years."
Who makes it expensive for businesses to run here??? Governments!!!!!!
37

Freddie and Bruno,

Paisley 03/07/2009 19:39:33
Amazing! In no other country in the world would you get citizens of that country slagging off people, businesses or politicians/political parties for the benefit of political parties/quislings that are funded by another country.

Scottish unionists arguing for the very things that the country they want to remain in union with is arguing against. England wants a referendum against Europe so that they dont end up being in the same position as Scotland is in within the UK.

Strange confused wee English-funded Scottsh unionists!
38

An Expert,

Aberdeen 03/07/2009 21:24:43
I have been following the discussions on these message boards with interest. Given the claims by Ministers and others that the proposals will not affect whisky, I had a look at the Tesco.com website this evening to see what prices they are charging for whisky (Scotch and otherwise). It's just a snapshot, but interesting nonetheless. I've put a selection down below, including three well-known blended brands that could not be described as 'value' brands. None of the brands below is stated by Tesco to be on promotion, so I assume that these are normal supermarket prices:

Clan Macgregor blended whisky 70 cl - £9.69
The Famous Grouse blended whisky 70 cl - £14.69
Four Roses Bourbon 70cl - £8.00
Glen Moray Single Malt 70 cl - £8.00 - I find it difficult to believe that you could get a Single malt for this price, but that's what the Tesco site says.

High Commissioner whisky 70cl - £8.82
Old Samuel Blended Bourbon whiskey 70cl - £10.69
Tesco Special reserve Scotch Whisky 70cl - £10.19
Tesco Value Whisky 70 cl - £9.29
Whyte & Mackay Scotch Whisky 70 cl - £13.38
Grant's blended whisky 70cl - £13.39

So there are a number of whiskies - Scottish and imported - that would be caught by the minimum price proposals and some well-known brands that are just above the price point that would be implied by a 40p per unit minimum price. On a 28 unit bottle of whisky that equates to a minimum price of £11.20. Bear in mind that the minimum pricing proposals do not recommend a particular price per unit - 40p was only given as an example in the early stages of this proposal. Meanwhile, 50p per unit is the figure that seems to be the one that some of the Chief Medical Officers and others are suggesting now. That would raise the minimum price of a bottle of Scotch to £14.00, affecting Whyte & mackay and Grant's, and not much below Grouse.

Those advocating minimum pricing appear to assume that whisky companies or retailers will not increase the price of bran
39

An Expert,

Still Aberdeen 03/07/2009 21:27:17
the price of brands that are currently above the minimum price. When governments interfere with markets, the consequences can be surprising. It is unlikely that the industry is going to keep the price points for such products the same as they currently are. For example, will the company concerned really be happy to see the price differential between Grouse and High Commissioner, say, reduce from £5.81 to £3.49 or even £0.69. What will most likely happen instead is that the prices of these products will also increase in order to maintain the differential so that consumers continue, rightly, to perceive them as superior products to what some describe as ‘cooking whisky’. Now those who support minimum pricing may not be concerned about that, and the companies may decide that they will take a hit in volume terms by increasing prices. But we all need to accept that the effects in practice of a minimum pricing regime may well have significant knock-on effects. To give an example of what I mean, it’s a bit like the new licensing regime that is about to come in in Scotland. Ministers and civil servants did not seem to realise that their proposals would have meant that distillery visitor centres - a major part of the country’s tourism offering - would have had to choose between selling their whisky brands and the wide range of merchandise that one finds in their shops. Thankfully that anomaly is being corrected. But even Historic Scotland - a government agency that is an important player in the tourism industry - has decided that the sheer cost of complying with the new licensing regime has made it uneconomic to sell any Scotch Whisky in a number of its major properties. Can you imagine how ridiculous that is going to seem to tourists from home and abroad? Also, the restriction on the area that retailers can use to display alcohol in may sound like a good idea, but it is likely to benefit the major brands at the expense of the smaller, more niche brands that I, for one, pref
40

An Expert,

03/07/2009 21:28:04
I am interested to see one contributor (on another thread) criticising Diageo for the decision to close their Kilmarnock facility by saying that it will lead to unemployment and, as a result, increased ill health among the population in Kilmarnock. Irrespective of whether there is any truth in that view, to me, it begins to get to the heart of the issue here. Dr Peter Terry, BMA Scotland Chairman, said in this newspaper this week that there was a limit to what can be done to address alcohol misuse in Scotland in the short term. He pointed out that alcohol misuse, and other health problems, are associated with poverty. Indeed, the Scottish Government spokesman giving a statement for the story agreed. As does research carried out by Aberdeen University for the Scottish Government recently. This showed that deaths per 100,000 population from alcohol-related liver disease in Scotland are overwhelmingly concentrated in the Greater Glasgow and Highland areas. While the national average is around 20 deaths per 100,000 (and now falling, unlike the rest of the UK), the worst area in Scotland was Govan, where the rate is a truly shocking 178 per 100,000. Most public health professionals in Scotland will tell you that the country’s poor overall health is largely down to ‘the Glasgow effect’. This depresses the country’s average life expectancy and boosts the average level of deaths from heart disease and stroke, for example. There may well be cultural issues there linked to the social acceptability of heavy drinking - and I absolutely accept that that is an issue in Scotland, and the UK, as a whole. However, there seem to be strong data supporting the thesis that the driver for such high levels of alcohol abuse in these communities is principally deprivation due to long-term economic decline. The population is poorer than in Scotland as a whole, alcohol is actually more expensive in Scotland than the UK as a whole, yet it is in these communities where the consequences of alcoh
41

An Expert,

03/07/2009 21:28:37
of alcohol abuse are by far the most serious. It seems obvious to me that tackling poverty effectively in those communities is one obvious policy response to the public health issue.
While the Highlands is becoming a genuine economic success story - and one would expect overall health in the population there to improve over time as a result - we still as a country seem to be making little progress in regenerating the economy of Glasgow and west central Scotland in general. If that continues, then it is difficult to see how health outcomes in those communities are going to improve. Conversely, if we can successfully regenerate the economies of these areas, then the overall health of their populations will improve. Sweden is often held up as an example of a society where high alcohol taxation and government monopolies have succeeded in reducing alcohol-related harm. Yet Denmark has significantly lower taxes on alcohol but has similarly low levels of harm. It may be that the prosperity of these societies and the more even/equitable distribution of wealth there are as important a factor in that.
42

An Expert,

03/07/2009 21:29:04
It is unfortunate that this issue has become a political football - and I speak as a member of the Scottish National Party of some years standing. I don’t think there is anyone who disputes that alcohol abuse in Scotland is at unacceptable levels, that it is a serious issue and it must be driven down. However, those advocating minimum pricing - which let us remember is only one element of the government’s broader strategy, which seems to have widespread support including from the industry - tend to paint anyone who disagrees with their agenda as somehow condoning the status quo. This is neither fair nor constructive. Whenever I see an interview with a Minister on this issue, I know exactly what they will say before they say it: alcohol abuse costs us £2.25 billion a year; it’s not the drink, it’s how we’re drinking; stop selling drink at pocket money prices etc … Their minds are closed and they are painting themselves into a corner as a result. For months, we have been subjected to the periodic strategic release of research and surveys that are becoming ever more strident. The ‘revelation’ this week that twice as many people are supposedly dying from alcohol-related causes not only relied on elderly research data dating from 2003 - a full 6 years ago - but made some rather ambitious connections between certain categories of deaths and alcohol. Although this newspaper has not appeared to see what is going on, the Aberdeen Press & Journal, quite rightly, pointed out that all this is all designed to influence public and political opinion in favour of minimum pricing. It’s a great PR strategy, but is it good policy-making?

Yet the (UK) government’s own research indicates that minimum pricing will not deliver a step change in the alcohol consumption of heavy drinkers, who together with underage drinkers are said to be the main target. The Sheffield research, for example, suggested that a 50p unit price might reduce the consumption of harmful drinkers by 2 units per we
43

An Expert,

03/07/2009 21:33:39
by 2 units per week. That’s undoubtedly progress. But it is not so impressive when one realises that such people are defined as drinking 70+ units per week. It is difficult to see why this very marginal change among the behaviour of a minority (UK Treasury data suggest that only 5% of the UK population account for 30% of UK alcohol consumption) justifies a population-wide pricing regime that, as I suggest above, will probably affect the pricing of far more whisky brands than the government anticipates.

While I might express it in more measured terms, I agree with those who bemoan the infantilisation of the population in this way, which actually encourages individuals to abdicate responsibility for their own well-being. And so the cycle goes on.

44

frank mcbride,

lusitania 03/07/2009 21:40:29
#44, An Expert.

All the prices for spirits (40%) less than, c £11.50 are "loss leaders".

Excise duty: £6.30 http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2009/bn86.pdf
VAT on this: £1.05

When you add on the cost of, product, transport, staffing, other overheads and profit, the REAL cost is c£11.50.

This is for a bottle of B grade spirit.

Supermarkets are selling these products at a LOSS.

It is a lie to say that the SG policy of minimum unit pricing would affect the real cost of whisky. It may, however, make supermarkets marginally more ethical.

This reply also answers Black Sabbath.
45

frank mcbride,

lusitania 03/07/2009 22:02:42
#45/49, An Expert.

Regardless of my #50, which was to point out the fact that the SG policy would not affect the price of whisky if sold in a normal retail manner, I have to agree with your comments, on the whole.

As you say, minimum pricing is just one part of the strategy and, like yourself, I'm not sure how much difference it will make.
However, the whole package is, for the first time, one which is trying to use "joined up writing" in an attempt to tackle this socially devastating problem. Part of this approach is to try to get retailers to behave in an ethical and socially aware fashion. This, I think, should be applauded.
46

An Expert,

03/07/2009 22:10:55
48.

Is it not possible for anyone here to disagree honestly with someone else without being accused of lying? I am afraid that that is the problem with this debate. I am simply expressing a view that reflects my perception of the problem and the policy measures that have been proposed. In case it did not come across, I actually support most of the rest of the government proposals. I am sorry if my posts have been a bit lengthy, but I hope that you will agree that they have been considered and at least attempt to back up what I say with government-produced evidence.

Turning to price, if you look at reports elsewhere in this newspaper about Scotch whisky exports, you'll see that they amounted to 1 billion bottles in 2008, which were worth around £3 billion. Adding £3 per bottle to the UK tax figures you quote, which are indeed correct, would suggest an average price for a bottle of whisky as £10.35. As you rightly say, you would need to add overheads and margins to that in order to determine a retail price. However, as the £3 is an average figure, and includes the whole range of whisky price points from the value end right up to the luxury Johnnie Walker Blue Label level, I don't see why it is unreasonable to suppose that High Commissioner is not being sold at a loss at the price I quote above. From what you say, I doubt that you have any more information on margins and other costs than I do. I have seen similar brands on sale in corner shops for the same sort of price. The spirit itself is genuinely not worth that much.

I note that you disagree with my view that minimum pricing will have knock-on effects on higher-priced brands. I respect that view but think it will not prove to be correct for the reasons I stated.
47

An Expert,

03/07/2009 22:19:33
Mr McBride,

Our latest posts have crossed. I entirely agree with what you say at no. 49. There is undoubtedly a serious problem in Scotland and it is encouraging that the government is determined to do something about it. But governments need to formulate policy on the basis of evidence so that the problem can be tackled effectively. My worry is that minimum pricing is going to penalise the majority of individuals whose drinking does not present a risk to their health - I know it's a cliche, but it is also true - as well as one of our most important industries, while not actually addressing in a meaningful way the problematic behaviour of those who misuse alcohol.

We should also recognise that much good work is already underway that will bear fruit in time - GPs are now undertaking many more 'brief interventions' with those who are drinking too much (i.e. telling them what will happen as a consequence of their drinking). These are acknowledged by the WHO as being among the most effective means of changing problematic drinking behaviour.
48

donald,

glasgow 04/07/2009 05:13:34
The Talibams are right aboot the EBC.
49

Failin Palin,

10/07/2009 04:41:43
Jobs are being lost everywhere.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.