Professor Tim Stockwell:

It has not yet been implemented in Scotland. While the measure was passed into law by the Scottish Parliament, its implementation has been held up by appeals.

There is a strong theoretical argument for pricing by the contents of alcoholic drinks that do harm, for example, with regard to the amount of ethanol. Behaviour in respect of alcohol is similar to behaviour in respect of ordinary commodities in that people respond to price increases by purchasing less of it. Targeting the harmful ingredients of alcohol should, in theory, be more effective. In terms of evidence, Saskatchewan operates a version of minimum pricing that is unique in Canada in that it targets the strength of drinks. This has had a bigger effect on consumption than the more random approach taken in British Columbia where a minimum price is applied to spirits, while beer has become cheaper in real terms over the years. The latter approach is not very effective as it results in substitution because people switch to other products when one increases the minimum price of a product. The reduction in consumption in British Columbia was 3.4% where the average increase in minimum price was 10%. In contrast, in Saskatchewan the reduction was 8.4%. This is testament to the need to take a more targeted approach to the way in which prices are calculated. Generally, however, we are finding minimum pricing affects crime levels and acute health outcomes, even in British Columbia.

A highly influential group at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom has done modelling that has put the Scottish Government on its current course of introducing minimum unit pricing. All of the predictions from the group's modelling, under which all the known evidence has been brought together, indicate that minimum unit pricing is more effective than minimum pricing.