I dare say that eventually this will come to the whole of the UK. The amount I drink these days it doesn't bother me anyway. I do wonder if it will make all that much
difference though. Those who are addicted will pay any price to get their daily tible.
I thought the person that they interviewed on BBC this morning didn't quite understand. She said the people that would be impacted most were the 'Poor' people and those on low incomes who just wanted a Friday/Saturday night bottle of cheap booze. Seems to me if you are 'Poor' or on a low income you shouldn't be buying booze rather than paying your bills and feeding your family.
As someone who likes a drink, I have no objection to a minimum charge per unit even though it would cost me a bit more. I think that the whole idea is flawed however if the additional money goes to the retailer and not the NHS.
"I think that the whole idea is flawed however if the additional money goes to the retailer and not the NHS."
How could it be otherwise, administratively? The increase in price is not a tax, it's a way of implementing a deterrent, and if it works the additional revenue should result in decreased sales. Letting the retailers keep the price increase is a way of compensating them for what is a government action that may ultimately impact their turnover.