Scotland's 'cheapest and most expensive' places for a pint named
New research has revealed the average price of a pint in locations around Scotland. Both the cheapest and most expensive destinations around the country were named.
With summer in full swing, people around Scotland will be looking to head to their nearest beer garden and enjoy a drink in the sun. However, the price of a pint can vary wildly across the country.
To help show where beer is the most and least affordable, Online Marketing Surgery and MG Timber have created the Pint Report. The report looks looks at areas in Scotland with the highest and lowest prices for a pint.
Four different destinations in Scotland all place joint-first as the cheapest place for a pint in the country. The average cost in Bathgate, Dumfries, Oban, and Stevenston was found to be £3.
Rounding out the top five most affordable areas in Scotland for a drink is Kilmarnock. According to the experts, the average cost of a pint in the East Ayrshire town is £3.25.
On the other hand, the priciest place for a pint in Scotland was revealed as Edinburgh. The experts found that the average cost of a pint in the Scottish capital is £5.50.
Four other locations in Scotland all place joint-second on the list of most expensive destinations in the country for a drink. According to the report, the cost of a pint in Annan, Glasgow, Inverness, and Livingston was found to be £5.
Elsewhere, the most expensive place in the whole of the UK for a drink was found to be Witney in Oxfordshire. According to the Pint Report, the average cost of a pint in the market town is £7.
Meanwhile, the cheapest place in the UK for a pint according to the Pint Report is Arun in West Sussex. Pints in the local government district were revealed to cost an average of just £2.
The Pint Report states: "As the cost of living continues to be a hot topic across the UK, one of the simplest pleasures, enjoying a pint at your local pub, is feeling the impact."
It continues: "In response to growing public interest in price disparities across the country, we have teamed up with MG Timber, a UK manufacturer of handcrafted pub benches and outdoor furniture, to launch the Pint Report. The report ranks the cheapest and most expensive towns and cities to buy a pint of beer, revealing striking regional differences in cost."
To put together the report, the experts collated the average price of a pint in cities and towns across Scotland and the UK. To do this, they used data from cost of living database Numbeo.
See below for the full lists of the cheapest and priciest destinations in Scotland for a pint. More information can be found on the Online Marketing Surgery website.
Top five cheapest areas in Scotland for a pint
Bathgate £3
Dumfries £3
Oban £3
Stevenston £3
Kilmarnock £3.25
Top five most expensive areas in Scotland for a pint
Edinburgh £5.50
Annan £5
Glasgow £5
Inverness £5
Livingston £5
Article continues below
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
16 minutes ago
- The National
Richest Scottish households have one fifth of country's wealth
With the figures showing the wealthiest 2% of households have almost a fifth (18%) of wealth in Scotland, campaigners said the data highlighted 'the vast scale of unfairness in Scotland today'. The report looked at wealth in Scotland – which includes the physical wealth of households' belongings, as well as savings and investment, property and pension wealth. The latest data, for the period 2018 to 2020, showed median household wealth in Scotland stood at £214,000 – with this down from £242,700 in 2016 to 2018 and £250,700 in 2014 to 2016. READ MORE: Palestinian journalists 'reporting on own extermination' call for action The report, which was published by the Scottish Government, noted: 'A typical household in the wealthiest 10% of households had £1.7 million in total wealth, whereas a typical household in the least wealthy 10% of households had £7,600.' It added: 'The least wealthy households rarely own property or have any private pension savings. Their wealth is mainly made up of the value of their possessions such as cars, furniture and clothing.' The report also noted that wealth can 'vary a lot by age', saying that 'younger households are less likely to have much or even any pension or property wealth, and most of their wealth is made up of the value of their belongings (physical wealth)'. It added: 'In general, people start building up wealth once they start receiving a salary, buy some goods, maybe save some money, and pay into a private pension scheme such as a workplace pension. 'Many buy a home, and through paying off their mortgage they build property wealth.' Meanwhile when people retire, the report said that 'pension wealth gets drawn upon and used up, while some people also downsize their homes and reduce their property wealth'. However campaigners at Tax Justice Scotland – which wants Holyrood's powers to be used to deliver greater equality – insisted changes are needed to 'share wealth more fairly'. Speaking on behalf of the group Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) – Scotland's largest trade union body – general secretary Roz Foyer said: 'These figures show the vast scale of unfairness in Scotland today. Roz Foyer (Image: free) 'Whilst those at the top accumulate more wealth, more than one in five children grow up in poverty and our public services are starved of the investment they urgently need. This cannot go on.' Foyer demanded: 'We need urgent tax reform to help share wealth more fairly and to distribute resources right across the country. READ MORE: Gordon Brown's had a good idea. But it won't fix the problem he created 'Over time, public finance pressures mean that most of us may need to pay a bit more, but this data makes clear this must start with those at the very top. 'In Scotland, that means parties must set out clear plans to scrap Council Tax and replace it with a fairer, modern property tax. 'At the UK level, we also need common sense wealth taxes that ensure the richest pay their fair share.' She insisted: 'It's time for our political leaders to step up with serious tax plans to help close this growing wealth gap and to invest in creating a fairer, more prosperous future for all of us.' Scottish Green equalities spokeswoman Maggie Chapman criticised the 'obscene inequality in these statistics', adding: 'There is a small number of people who are very well off, and a far greater number who have very little.' She added: 'Scotland has a very long way to go if we are to build a fairer society, and this must be a clarion call for change.' Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat MSP Willie Rennie said that 'so many people are finding that there is nothing left at the end of the month'. He said: 'People are paying the price for the SNP's incompetence and Liz Truss and the Conservatives crashing the economy.' Shirley-Anne Somerville (Image: PA) Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said: 'As a result of Scottish Government policies, the poorest 10% of households with children are estimated to be £2,600 a year better off in 2025-2026.' However, she added: 'Inequality is still too high, with too many economic powers left in the hands of the UK Government which has too often sought to balance the books on the backs of the poorest. 'With the full powers of independence, Scotland could do more to take a different approach from the UK status quo, and take decisions which would make Scotland the fairer, more equal country that we want to see.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
If Scotland is so poor, why does Westminster resist independence?
This from a Westminster government that has run a deficit for my entire life, hence the continual increase in borrowing. In 2010, when the Tories came to power, the debt was £1.3 trillion. Under their governance, it's now reached well north of £2 trillion, despite the years of austerity that decimated our public services and which may take a generation or more to repair. WATCH: Expert debunks everything you've been told about Scottish 'deficit' Westminster has trashed the economy and then has the temerity to apportion 'our share' of that debt accrued to we Scots who had no influence in its creation. We Scots are paying for vanity projects we can never benefit from, nor do we have any influence over the political choices that waste money wholesale across the economy, while having also to bear continually higher interest rates, low wages, energy poverty and housing crises. GERS is a manufactured illusion designed to portray Scotland as bad and weak. This is the same bad and weak Scotland that English-dominated Westminster is desperate to hold on to. Why? Because we know they have long taken Scotland's resources and poured them into the UK financial cesspit to prop it up, and fully intend to do so going forward. It's they who can't afford Scotland's independence, not us. Common sense reveals that if these GERS figures were correct, Scotland would be independent by now, and Westminster would be driving it. READ MORE: Scottish Secretary Ian Murray reacts to latest GERS figures Independent, with full political and economic control, we could divest ourselves of the UK's sick economy of Europe that's long lived off its size and reputation rather than ability and strength, and build a stronger future for our descendants. Independence now is our imperative. Don't we urgently need an indy road map drawn with courage and determination rather than a seemingly cosy wee 'vote for us and we'll see what we can do' promise with the indy can kicked farther down the road? Jim Taylor Scotland THERE has been a significant increase in the number of people complaining about various plans or the lack of. Each inventor assumes that their specific plan is infallible and can produce the outcome we all seek. This is putting the cart before the horse. The problem most authors make is to not take account of the forces arrayed against us or the practical realities of plans being implemented. In most cases we probably need a combination of plans rather than just one. The circumstances at the time will dictate which plan or plans can or cannot be used. Creating plans is valid, and each of them goes on a shelf ready to be used when the time and circumstances are appropriate, as with preparing for contingencies like defence or pandemics. None of them have on their own any degree of certainty, and it remains essential that flexibility in argument and implementation is maintained. READ MORE: GERS figures show Scottish Government revenue growing faster than spending Fundamentally though, the prerequisite for pursuing any of the plans is a reliable majority of voters to start the process off. We can have as many plans as we like, but without that recognisable majority none of them can ever get off the ground. None of the plans actually recognises the need to convince people, probably because the only people who devise them speak to the already converted. If that enthusiasm and dedication were directed at those who are not converted, we would stand a much better chance of success. Internal arguments about plans get in the way of the primary need to convince a solid and consistent majority. Without that majority support, it doesn't matter whether it is Alex Salmond's ghost, John Swinney, Kenny MacAskill or somebody else leading the charge with whichever masterful plan is valid at the time. Arguing about who has the best and infallible plan is a futile waste of time and effort. Nick Cole Meigle, Perthshire OH how I really wish I shared Stan Grodynski's optimistic attitude to the leadership of the SNP in his recent letter headed 'An emphatic win for the SNP will mean no excuses for inaction' (Aug 13). I assume to help achieve this 'emphatic win' independence supporters will be asked to vote SNP on both ballot papers in May 2026. That election is now less than nine months away. A week is indeed a long time in politics, but my gut feeling is that we are heading for a result, at best, similar to the 2021 election – the SNP as the largest party but without an overall majority and another coalition with the Greens a very distinct and unfortunate possibility. READ MORE: The two plans for achieving independence are surely not incompatible I see little current evidence that Alba or any other of the small parties which support independence will reach the threshold required to turn list votes into list seats. To do so now would need the SNP to approve of their supporters voting for another independence-supporting party on the list. I see no chance of that happening any time soon. In addition, a potentially lacklustre and possibly poorly financed SNP campaign will see hundreds of thousands of independence supporters simply staying at home. The million or so SNP supporters who do vote may see their list votes result in a few extra SNP and Green candidates elected while the Unionist parties, now including Reform UK, will fill up the remaining large number of available list seats. It will be Groundhog Day – May 2021 all over again. If the SNP do really well and achieve a majority of MSPs, sadly I fear post-May 2026 there may suddenly appear a vast myriad of 'excuses for inaction'. The most obvious of which will be 'Keir Starmer just telt us NO'. The political ball will then be firmly bounced back into the SNP's court. The new SNP leader (assuming John Swinney has left the post) will have to decide on some very uncharacteristic radical action or meekly accept five more years of Donald Dewar devolution. Brian Lawson Paisley
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Gordon Brown had a good idea. But it won't fix the problem he created
Good evening! This week's edition of the In Common newsletter comes from Kaitlin Dryburgh, Common Weal's policy communications co-ordinator. GORDON Brown has given Rachel Reeves a sensible suggestion: increase taxes on the mighty gambling industry. Brown supports the proposal from the Institute for Public Policy Research, which would help to plug the two-child benefit cap and alleviate the appalling levels of child poverty we face. The former Labour leader thinks they should stand up to this industry, really show them who's boss, all in the name of doing some good for society. In a sense, he isn't wrong. The gambling industry isn't taxed enough. It also isn't fined as much as it should be – and it's woefully under-regulated. If we were being truly radical, we could follow the lead of some Scandinavian countries and nationalise all gambling, which would allow us to plough profits directly into doing good. That would also create benefits beyond monetary gain, such as a system capable of tracking and intervening in cases of gambling addiction. READ MORE: Is Gordon Brown right that Scottish child poverty 'worse every day'? However, such a move would require being unfazed by the gambling lobby – something Brown would know little about. While he comments on the meagre taxation the gambling industry faces and the good that revenue could achieve, Brown fails to mention the deregulation his government oversaw, the harm it caused, and the fact that in many cases it will have contributed to child poverty. He ignores the stark inequality between children growing up in deprivation and the gambling companies and executives who have grown their fortunes exponentially since he gave them a mighty boost. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, Brown presided over a shake-up of the gambling industry like never before. Tony Blair claimed there was 'no evidence' the changes would lead to gambling addiction (another example of Blair getting his evidence wrong) and even used Blackpool as an example of a place that could benefit from regeneration. Because nothing says 'revitalisation' quite like more gambling. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown pictured together during the New Labour yearsWhat followed was an explosion of betting shops and casinos across the country, alongside aggressive television advertising pumped directly into people's living rooms. But perhaps the most significant escalation came with the arrival of smartphones in our pockets: the online gambling boom. Since the liberalisation of gambling laws, the UK gambling market has become one of the largest in the world relative to its population. Thank you, Tony and Gordon. Almost half the UK population places at least one bet a month. Despite Blair's flippant assurance that this relaxation of gambling laws wouldn't cause addiction, he was dead wrong. I saw a betting advert the other month. I don't know if you're like me, but when it comes to this kind of thing on TV, I usually switch off, make a cup of tea, and ignore it. But my god, this one caught my attention, for all the wrong reasons. It showed people in different situations doing mundane tasks: one waiting for a bus, another building flat-pack furniture. The entire message was: in those moments, why not place a bet? Does that not feed directly into addiction? They were effectively saying: 'This isn't really about enjoyment – just do it out of boredom or habit.' READ MORE: Labour took more than £1m in donations and gifts from gambling firms Apparently that was fine, because our gambling regulations are not fit for purpose. One of the most recent large-scale studies estimates that 2.5% of the UK population has some form of gambling problem, and the NHS has seen a rise in those seeking help. Gambling ruins lives; people lose their homes, their jobs, their families, and in some cases their lives. Betting companies are sometimes called out on this. Either they get a slap on the wrist or endure a short bout of bad publicity – but they don't care. Paddy Power, a company worth tens of billions, was fined a mere £280,000 for failing to carry out sufficient checks on problem gamblers. They even actively encouraged one addicted customer to stay longer and spend more on their premises. A decision that cost the individual their jobs, access to their children, and their home. There are countless horror stories of gambling companies employing the most exploitative strategies imaginable to extract as much money as possible from vulnerable gamblers. This is the direct result of commercial lobbyists shaping government policy, rather than the other way around. They feebly present 'investment' as an excuse, when in reality industries like these extract wealth, they don't create it. That's why there are four entries on the top 100 UK Rich List linked to gambling, with a combined fortune of £23.1 billion. Brown certainly has a point when it comes to taxing gambling more heavily, but the monster that is the UK gambling industry is partly his creation. The harm it has caused for decades lies at the door of his former government, and the betting companies are still reaping the rewards of the legislation he helped to pass.
