Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Breweries to be exempt from laws on alcohol advertising

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: 19 May 2009
DISTILLERIES and breweries will be exempt from laws targeting alcohol displays in shops, the Scottish Government said yesterday.
The move comes after industry fears that visitor attractions may suffer a knock-on effect of legislation aimed at reducing alcohol abuse.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said: "We are not anti-alcohol, but Scotland has got its relationship with
the bottle out of kilter. It's not the drink, it's how we're drinking – we need to get things back in balance.

"Our regulations to prevent alcohol being displayed in more than one area of a shop were designed to prevent alcohol being displayed all over the store to encourage impulse buying.

"Clearly, alcohol sold at attractions to promote and increase understanding of the skill that goes into producing fine premium drinks such as malt whiskies doesn't fall into this category.

"That is why, when these unintended consequences were drawn to our attention, I was more than happy to look at the situation. I am now laying regulations in Parliament that mean these attractions can make sure their gift shops are able to continue to trade in a way which complements the rest of the experience."

He made the announcement during a visit to the Scottish Liqueur Centre, where he spoke of the government's "pride" in the industry.

Campbell Evans, of the Scotch Whisky Association, welcomed the decision.

"We have worked closely with the government to agree a pragmatic and workable solution so that visitor centres can continue to showcase Scotch whisky and a wide range of other local products," he said. "The revised regulations are a recognition that it is possible to tackle alcohol misuse, whilst avoiding unintended negative consequences for a key Scottish industry."





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/05/2009 03:33:53

The whole way, that we have tackled our soo called Alcohol problem, is of grotesque ignorance's and stupidity, in the first place!
The "Advertising" of Alcohol, has NEVER made me ever abuse alcohol as, as, my Children, have NEVER asked me or taken interest in, about any related "Advertising" of Alcohol.

It is beyond 'Beggars Believe' that the 'Few' who Abuse Alcohol, have made the Majority of us suffer, under ignorant proposed legislation.

It is like saying, "Because one is a Criminal",...
..."We have all become,...Criminals"!

Ignorance's and the most Grotesque Stupidity, beyond Believe!

2

tomi,

19/05/2009 03:51:58
Who "impulse buys" alcohol?

That's what we go to the store for!
3

kt,

19/05/2009 07:04:49
It IS the drink Mr McAskill.......thats just like saying, its not the drugs or the fags, its how they are being taken.....

Which one is it Mr McAskill???
4

Iain Mac,

19/05/2009 08:15:06
#1 - so only a 'few' abuse alcohol. You lead a sheltered life.

#3 drink and drugs can be taken responsibly. All parties approaches are a bit hypocritical. Cannibis is less harmful than alcohol but is illegal. All should be legalised so that then proper controls can be effected on them.

I'd also support tax breaks for the smaller distillers. Valuable home industries like malt whisky need to be protected.
5

thinking,

Scotland 19/05/2009 08:35:32
#4
You obviously haven't been reading the latest findings on the harmful effects of cannabis. It is very harmful with long term effects.
6

ToniSwiss,

A Neutral Corner 19/05/2009 08:51:58
#'s 4 & 5

Good science surely has to be the way forward re' recreational drugs (and that includes alcohol)

This is worth a read:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/drugs/
7

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/05/2009 10:29:42
Iain Mac:

Charles isn't the one who is leading a sheltered life. It IS a minority who abuse alcohol. The vast majority do not.

This is typical of stupid MacAskill's policy of hitting the law-abiding majority in order to deal with the law-breaking minority. It will be a saddest day for Scotland since the smoking ban if this stupid, inane legislation ever makes it through parliament.
8

ToniSwiss,

A Neutral Corner 19/05/2009 10:49:18
#7

Unless alcohol plays a major part in your lifestyle, then we are talking about “toffee and a balloon” here. Against that, we make a start at tackling the £2.4 billion annual cost to our nation. I personally have no problem with Mr MacAskill’s proposals and welcome action which is long overdue

As for your comment about fags, may natural selection be merciful on you and your offspring
9

english charlie,

19/05/2009 12:02:04
In the list of mostdangerous drugs
5 Alcohol
9 Tobacco
11 Cannabis
10

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/05/2009 12:04:47
Toni,

It is the apethetic attitude of people like you who are allowing fanatics to destroy this country and the freedom of thos who live in it.

You do not deal with a minority problem by hitting the majority with daft legislation in the way that MacAskill thinks you can.

MacAskill's stupidity will probably not have a great effect on me personally, however it is yet another nail in the coffin of freedom. It is yet another small step down the road to nanny state totalitarianism and it should be faught robustly.

Mark my words. If MacAskill succeeds in getting this stupid legislation through, then we can expect it to be followed by even more of his daft ideas which WILL end up affecting us all---regardless of whether we have a "drink problem" or not. You know what MacAskill has proposed in the past and you know how the moron thinks. The last thing we want to do is to leave the door open so that he can actually do it.

This should be fought tooth and nail on the basis of principle, not on the basis of immediate effect.
11

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/05/2009 12:06:50
Charlie:

I once had a book of stupid lists. Quite funny it was too!
12

Iain Mac,

19/05/2009 12:43:39
Alcohol is a problem. It's not just the neds and drunken revellers that fill our town and city centres every weekend. Doctors now say it's the middle-classes with their bottle of wine everynight.

No wonder so many of them are fat.

NO one said cannibis is not harmful. It's not as harmful as alcohol and is much less of a problem for society.

Folk like Fuelhead may criticise, but what's their solution? I assume he isn't a nurse, doctor or policeman?
13

Iain Mac,

19/05/2009 12:46:11
#10 - just noticed Fuelhead's 'freedom' bit. Freedom comes with responsiblilty. Yeah, folk can drink what they want. But who picks up the pieces? Who pays their hospital bills? Oh, they do through taxes... er but... you don't want it taxed?

Confusedhead more like.

Why should i pay for neds or middle-class jakes who use their 'freedom' to drink themselves into hospital?
14

ToniSwiss,

A Neutral Corner 19/05/2009 13:08:03
#'s 9, 12 & 13 - Absolutely spot on

# 8

If apathy = seeing the bigger picture, not taking a selfish me me me attitude and supporting attempts to civilising the nation then you are right!! I would suggest you try some joined up thinking before talking about "freedom" and civil liberties.

15

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/05/2009 13:12:06
#13:

Correct. Freedom does come with responsibility. I am responsible regarding drink and therefore I should not be subject to stupid rules designed for those who are not responsible. And the vast majority is like me.

Trying to pretend that drinking "costs" the country so many millions is just spin. Based on that logic, if nobody drank, you could then get rid of staff and facilities in order to "save" that money could you???

Of course you couldn't. This idea of adding up man-hours in order to put a "cost" on everything is just bean-counting gone mad. It has no bearing on the reality of anything.

You pay your taxes which go towards running the HEALTH SERVICE. If you smoke and/or drink, you contribute a great deal more to the HEALTH SERVICE. The HEALTH SERVICE is there for all and everyone who is working contributes to it and everyone who works should pay for it. That is the bottom line. The HEALTH SERVICE wouldn't get any cheaper if less people drank to excess so let's not kid ourselves on that it would.

I could say the same kind of thing about you. What if you end up in hospital because you had a road crash that was your own stupid fault? Why should I pay for you to have the "freedom" to drive without thinking?

Let's have less of this practice of trying to put a price on everything.
16

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/05/2009 13:16:44
Toni:

"civilising" our world does not equate to dumbing everything down and treating people like idiots---in the way that this sick legislation proposes to do.

Are you really of the mindset that only way we can be "civilised" is to have every aspect of our lives controlled by the rule of law? If so, you really do need to take stock.

17

ToniSwiss,

A Neutral Corner 19/05/2009 13:20:12
# 15

Be careful not to mix facts (i.e. current accepted wisdom) with your opinion cos’ they are not the same. Your rant about “spin” bean-counting gone mad” and alcohol/smoking related costs in the NHS beggars belief !!
18

Yonthing!,

19/05/2009 13:39:19
Leaving aside the specifics of this case (alcohol), this is a perfect example of how our parliament and politician push through popular laws to win votes rather than considering the full consequences on our society.

All the parties are at it - out to win more popular votes (and keeping themselves in a job) than actually taking the time to consider how best to improve our communities and society.

There's something to be said for an unelected body such as the House of Lords to put the brakes on insanity (I'm not saying its perfect, just that it has its place!)
19

ToniSwiss,

A Neutral Corner 19/05/2009 15:25:46
# 18

Anything that means extra cost to the electorate is usually a vote loser (imho)

As you say, nothing is perfect. In the absence of any better suggestions, however, our Parliament should be congratulated for at least getting the ball rolling and trying to impact a serious and endemic health problem in our nation. From my perspective, this is complete sanity
20

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/05/2009 15:28:21
Toni:

I only ever write FACTS on these pages. If I say that something is my opinion, then that's what it is. If I do not write that rider, then it is FACT.

FACT: The NHS would exist whether or not people smoked and drank.
FACT: The NHS costs us taxpayers money to run.
FACT: The NHS has a laid down budget.
FACT: That budget would not be cut simply on the basis of everyone giving up smoking and drinking tomorrow.
FACT: The NHS would continue to spend up to their budget.

Once you start singling out specific ailments and trying to price them up, you are on very dangerous ground. Everyone has the right to care from the NHS, regardless of whether their ailment was aviodable or not, and whether it is down to their negligence or not. If you don't like the idea of having to contribute money to an organisation that treats EVERYONE on an equal footing, then I suggest you move to a country that doesn't have a health service and see how much more you would spend on medical insurance.
21

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/05/2009 15:34:32
#19:

I ask you again...

Why should I be subject to restrictions aimed at curtailing the irresponsible behaviour of a minority?

It seems that you are going down the route of "...well at least they are dong something. It's better than doing nothing." -- No it is NOT! Doing nothing is a hell of a lot better than doing the WRONG thing.

Putting restrictions in place that treat people like idiots is the WRONG thing.

The way they should be going is to put the responsibility back into the issue. Let's make it cool again to be able to handle your drink like a man or lady rather than it being cool to act like a moron. That's the only way we will address the supposed "drink problem".
22

ToniSwiss,

A Neutral Corner 19/05/2009 15:41:50
# 20

You have provided a list of your suppositions which are very different from FACTS. If something is not measurable then it cannot be a fact (by definition). As I have already said, try some joined up thinking before committing to print
23

ToniSwiss,

A Neutral Corner 19/05/2009 15:45:38
# 21

Please enlighten us - what exactly are these "restrictions"???
24

ToniSwiss,

19/05/2009 16:03:20
# 20

I see no rider in your post. I must therefore assume that “Doing nothing is a hell of a lot better than doing the WRONG thing” and “Putting restrictions in place that treat people like idiots is the WRONG thing” are in fact, FACTS. Maybe they are in your world but to me, they are just unsubstantiated opinions

While we are at it, what actually is your answer to the social and financial costs of alcohol abuse?
25

Calum Crubag,

19/05/2009 19:50:06
Foolhead says:
FACT: The NHS would exist whether or not people smoked and drank.
FACT: The NHS costs us taxpayers money to run.
FACT: The NHS has a laid down budget.
FACT: That budget would not be cut simply on the basis of everyone giving up smoking and drinking tomorrow.
FACT: The NHS would continue to spend up to their budget.

But he argues AGAINST taxes on fags and booze!!! How then will the NHS function? I say, legalise all drugs and tax those who want to get wasted, on dope or drink, so the rest of us can have decent publice services.

Foolhead is a BNP supporter btw. Nuff said. His idea of freedom is boneheads and toffs turfing out the foreigners. There's his idea of progess.
26

Calum Crubag,

19/05/2009 19:51:17
Foolhead again:
The way they should be going is to put the responsibility back into the issue. Let's make it cool again to be able to handle your drink like a man or lady rather than it being cool to act like a moron. That's the only way we will address the supposed "drink problem".

So is there a problem or not??!!! And how would YOU initiate the above?
27

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/05/2009 22:01:22

Fuel Head @#various,

Thank God, you have not become one of the hysterical brainwash, majority (be the look of it), who will believe all they hear and will not protest to ignorant legislation's.
On this thread my comment at #1 was by a few not believed, so are they admitting out of say 10people they Know, 8 of them are alcoholics?, I do not think soo some how!
A very basic question to ask oneself, before jumping down,..'Hysteria Street'!

Two Children behave very badly at school, does this mean all the children should, have new rules to abide by?

A very basic question to ask oneself, before jumping down,..'Hysteria Street'!

But yet Time and Time again, we do not have the commonsense, to see this is how we are being treated in our society, forced by Political Correction, to make us all 'Mutual'!

28

Iain Mac,

19/05/2009 22:04:13
#27 - Please repeat in English. Or another legible tongue.
29

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/05/2009 22:20:35
Calum,

I am not a BNP supporter. In case you are not aware, I am more of a Tory supporter.

However, at the moment, I am prepared to support anyone with common sense... and that does not include MacAskill.

We cannot continue down the road of treating everyone like an idiot. We cannot continue introducing legislation that attempts to protect people from themselves. If we do, we will end up with a nation of unthinking sheep who are incapable of thinking for themselves and are un-prepared for anything.

Both you and Swiss Toni have asked me what I would do. I have already answered that question at #21. There is a growing problem with people not conducting themselves in an appropriate manner when they have consumed alcohol. The source of this problem has it's roots in over-zealous enforcement of pub age limits.

The way ahead is to back off with the enforcement and to change the way people think by RIDICULING those who cannot handle their drink in a very public way. Start an advertising campaign to that effect instead of the utterly ridiculous propaganda about "maximum number of units per day".

If we do not back off with enforcement we ARE going to end up with people getting their houses broken into for booze and we ARE going to get people being mugged on the way home from the shops for their booze. Mark my words. If the likes of MacAskill are allowed to continue then the problem will be compounded.
30

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/05/2009 22:39:22

Iain ~28,

@#4, you say "You lead a sheltered life", if this is the case, I summarize that you have 10 people you know, 8 of them are into 'Alcohol Abuse'

If this is not the case, one should ask oneself,..



If it is true however, and you do know 8 out of 10 people you know to Abuse Alcohol, one again must ask oneself,...

"Who is really leading the sheltered life?"

Because you must be one of the few, who knows 8 out of 10 people in their life, that Abuse Alcohol.

I myself do not associate with vast amounts of people like that.

31

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/05/2009 22:42:05
error correct(it were not me fault, blame the laptop)

Iain ~28,

@#4, you say "You lead a sheltered life", if this is the case, I summarize that you have 10 people you know, 8 of them are into 'Alcohol Abuse'

If this is not the case, one should ask oneself,..

"Who is really leading the sheltered life?"

If it is true however, and you do know 8 out of 10 people you know to Abuse Alcohol, one again must ask oneself,...

"Who is really leading the sheltered life?"

Because you must be one of the few, who knows 8 out of 10 people in their life, that Abuse Alcohol.

I myself do not associate with vast amounts of people like that.
32

ToniSwiss,

A Neutral Corner 20/05/2009 09:15:41
# 29

You may believe you have addressed the “WHAT needs to be done” but you have still to tackle the “HOW it will be achieved”. As things stand, Mr MacAskill leads by a country mile in these stakes

The electorate will shortly be allowed to have their say in this and other matters. As you have already pointed out, if you don’t like the outcome, you can always go and stay in another country
33

ToniSwiss,

A Neutral Location 20/05/2009 09:17:09
Properly Charlie and Head Tw@t @ various #’s

Having read your posts again, thoughts of Don Quixote loyal servant Sancho Panza spring to mind!! Unless I have got this wrong, your points seems to revolve around ideas of restrictions, civil liberties, thin end of the wedge, being treated like an idiot, stupid inane legislation, should be fought tooth and nail on the basis of principle etc. etc. etc.

I’m sorry but I see this as a much bigger issue which costs £ billions and social misery every day of every year (until we DO something). Please therefore excuse me while I get back to the bigger picture

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Do you support Scotland’s new licensing laws, which come into effect now?
Yes, if they help curb our binge-drinking culture
No, people will still find the money to go boozing
No, these laws treat people like children

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.