Table 2.

Summary of dominant framing of minimum unit pricing in evidence submissions to the Scottish Parliament (triangulated with interviewee data).

	Non-industry related advocates	Industry-related advocates	Critics
Overall framing of the debate	Need to reduce overall population consumption to address alcohol-related harms Alcohol-related harms have increased hugely over last three decades	Need to target those who are behaving irresponsibly Alcohol misuse is a serious issue	Need to target those who are behaving irresponsibly Problem drinking is reducing in last few years
Drivers of the alcohol problem	Increasing affordability of alcohol, particularly in the off-sales environment	Increasing affordability of alcohol but must remember need for individual responsibility	Culture of irresponsible consumption Problem people: young binge drinkers and dependent drinkers
Arguments about minimum  unit pricing	Evidence demonstrates is effective Essential part of multi-component strategy Targets those at greatest risk of harm Reduces health inequalities, as poor at greatest risk of harms Will improve drinking patterns, with lower strength drinks and move to licensed premises Will lead to economic gains due to less absenteeism	Targets those who misuse alcohol Complements education Experience in Canada shows it does not harm industry	Will not change behaviour of the most problematic drinkers Alternative solutions: Education and licensing law (changes had recently occurred) Will harm businesses Will punish responsible drinkers Will punish the poor Will lead to illicit alcohol trading Questions around legality

Table summarises material originally presented in (Katikireddi, Bond, & Hilton, 2014).