Yes, I am a liberal elite atheist trying to ban Christmas, and proud of it! Not really. Everyone else can celebrate it as much as they like as far as I’m concerned. But I don’t celebrate Christmas for religious reasons, and I don’t see any point in pretending otherwise.

I am celebrating though. Wintervals are older than Christianity, and it isn’t difficult to see why. Winter is a terrible time of year, bereft of warmth and particularly sunlight. It is quite disturbing when you have sleeping patterns like mine and you end up sleeping through the entire day.

On this basis, I should really celebrate the Winter Solstice, like Adam Smith was a Socialist does. But seeing as everyone else celebrates on the 25^th, that’s good enough for me.

For me, this is an opportunity to enjoy yourself at a bad time of the year. One of the things I hate most about Christmas is the way people get so stressed out about it. People need to chill out a bit and enjoy the holiday instead of running around trying to buy tat which the recipient will, on average, value between a tenth and a third less than was paid for it (PDF).

I am not being smug about it because I have fallen into the trap as well. There must be some kind of sociological law that says the more you’re supposed to be on holiday, the busier you actually are. Just more lies from society. I don’t know why I don’t just exit now.

That’s why I haven’t been blogging much over the past few days, even though I have a million things to say. Story of the year. The busyness is partly as a result of my high-flying career in retail (!). But I’ve also got a mountain of university work to do as well.

In a way, I am lucky as an Edinburgh University student. Our winter exams are done and dusted by mid-December, so we don’t have them looming over us all Christmas. Having the exams that early has its own disadvantages of course, but at least Christmas is worry-free.

Not this year though. I have a 3,000 word essay to write about changes in Scotland’s population since 1945. The module is The Scottish Economy, which is very interesting, but also a damn nuisance because there is very little reading material compared to most other modules. I really will have to pull those 3,000 words out of thin air.

I’m also tearing my hair out about my dissertation. It’s due in towards the end of February. For various reasons, I never got the work done during the year that I was hoping to, so I am behind schedule big time. Well, I’ve written nine pages out of 30, but I’m sure to cover most of the material that will have to be edited down quite a lot anyway.

The upshot of all this was that I was in Edinburgh on Friday to take back some books that I haven’t needed for weeks and to do some reading for that Scottish Economy essay. I also got out some more heavy books. And lots of climbing up and down stairs was involved.

Then, sucker that I am, I went to do some Christmas shopping. Lots of walking up and down Princes Street was involved. And the stuff I bought was ridiculously heavy. I felt like a bit of a tube in the train station, as I battled with all of that stuff.

Worst of all, the combination of heavy shopping and heavy library books has left me with a plethora of strange pains in all kinds of parts of my body. I feel like a decrepit octogenarian. Next year I will probably stick to shopping in Kirkcaldy.

Incidentally, mad busy 24/7 shitlife aside, I will not be switching off the computer over the Christmas period as some people do. I don’t really see the point in that. For me, blogging is — and always should be (unless it’s a pro- or business blog) — a leisure activity. I enjoy it. So I won’t be stopping. There’ll be fewer readers around of course, but that’s their choice. (Proof, if ever it were needed, that blogging is sustained mostly by people who are skiving off work).

I am currently facing the same Christmas cards dilemma that I had last year. Only this time, instead of receiving five cards, I’ve received nine. Clearly, either nobody cares that I didn’t give them a card last year, or they have completely forgotten. Which kind of sums up the insincerity of exchanging cards.

Anyway, my mother is currently bullying me into writing nine reciprocal cards. I was going to give to charity instead, because let’s face it — giving to charity will do a lot more good. Besides, what will happen if I don’t give them a card? Will I end up in their bad books? It didn’t happen last year, so…

Well, I just flipped a coin to decide, and it turns out that I have to write out the cards. Bah.

In my previous post I wondered if Nick Clegg would do much to enthuse me. Well, in my view he’s got off to a good start.

He revealed on the radio that he doesn’t believe in God. What’s more, he seems to have a thoroughly sensible, tolerant approach to the whole religion issue.

What a refreshing thing to hear from a politician. It does often seem as though atheism or even agnosticism is one of the worst things a politician can be associated with among some circles. Tony Blair even seemed to think it was a liability to be the wrong type of Christian. C of E while PM, since resigning he has mysteriously become a Roman Catholic.

Paul Linford, for instance has said that Clegg’s non-belief is “certainly concerning for me as a Christian” (via Bob Piper). Never mind the millions of non-Christians in this country who have never seen a non-Christian PM! I wonder if he ever found Margaret Thatcher’s sex as concerning for him as a male.

In this supposedly tolerant society, I sometimes think we’d sooner see a three-legged Prime Minister than a non-church-goer — never mind a black or openly gay PM. I wonder how many leaders of the major parties historically have publicly stated that they don’t believe in God. I assume Nick Clegg must be among the first. Full credit to him for speaking the truth.

The second thing that has impressed me is the fact that he has enlisted Brian Eno to “reach out beyond the London beltway”. In particular, Eno is to advise the Lib Dems on how to appeal to young people.

This is good in two senses. Firstly, appealing to young people is good. One of the biggest crimes in the country today is to be a yoof, as you can see with the vilification of the hoodie, a convenient item of clothing.

Appealing to young people is a typical politician’s cliché. But this comes across to me as quite a serious attempt. Brian Eno is not some greasy pole-climbing politician looking to get good headlines in the Daily Mail.

The second sense in which is this good is… Brian Eno, man!

Brian Eno is 59, which has led some people to wonder if he is really the right person to appeal to youth. I’m 21, which is pretty young, although I guess I am not like most yoofs. But I think Brian Eno is great. The person who (as legend has it) invented ambient music has got to be awesome, right?

He has created some of the greatest pieces of music of the past thirty or forty years. A lot of young people respect this. I know I certainly do. Okay, there are various U2-related crimes, but that’s a tough gig. I mean, talk about polishing a turd!

Brian Eno should be respected for actually engaging his brain (one). He is the only pop musician I can think of who doesn’t just dribble out ignorance every time he opines about a topic other than music. In a world teeming with preening pricks like Bob Geldof and Bono, Brian Eno is a real breath of fresh air.

And, unlike Bob Geldof’s sojourn with the Conservatives (presumably David Cameron has some really nice biscuits and a good belly-rubbing technique), Eno’s association with the Lib Dems is principled. Remember Eno’s website from a couple of years back, Lib Dem This Time (rather broken-looking now)? Eno is also a long-standing supporter of electoral reform.

One other thing, and it’s related to what I said yesterday. It looks as though Nick Clegg has raised a few eyebrows by saying that he hasn’t heard of ‘Fairytale of New York’ and by citing a non-existent album (’Changes’ by David Bowie) as his favourite.

It does seem a bit odd. But what if the poor guy just doesn’t like pop music? I have written before that I don’t understand why we expect politicians to know these things. Sure, most people keep tabs on pop music. But we are all different, and we all have different interests. Maybe Clegg’s “gaffes” are just down to the fact that he doesn’t waste time on trivia.

I’m glad I have ruled out becoming a politician in the future. If I did, I would no doubt be asked what my favourite film was. I’d have to answer, “I dunno, I don’t really watch films,” because I don’t really watch films. Then I’d be crucified by a media (and society?) that wants mine to be a mirror image of the median voter’s leisure tastes.

A closer look at the smaller parties.

The collapse of the SSP / Solidarity has been spectacular. They have lost all of their MSPs, and apparently even have only one councillor each in the whole of Scotland now. What I am most surprised about, though, is the fact that Solidarity actually seem to have the upper hand.

The SSP clearly owed almost all of their support to the charisma of Tommy Sheridan. Now that he has gone off to form his own party, the left vote has split. But Tommy Sheridan has been quick to point out that Solidarity is already the largest socialist party in Scotland, after just eight months.

It is still a huge comedown. In many areas Solidarity are behind Christian parties. In most areas they are also behind the BNP. Meanwhile, the SSP linger around among the truly diddy parties, registering between roughly 0.5% and just over 1% of votes.

I had got the impression that the SSP had a bigger movement behind it. But clearly among the electorate, SSP support is dead. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see Solidarity bounce back by the next election. Tommy Sheridan will have to rebuild trust, but he is the only person in a position to get any socialist party winning seats again.

Outside the five main parties, the best performers have consistently been the SSCUP. In effect, they are now the strongest small party (apart from the Greens). Not bad going, but they have still lost an MSP which really underlines just how badly the small parties have done in this election.

UKIP have taken an absolute drubbing — at the very bottom in Central Scotland, and not much more popular elsewhere. Clearly there just isn’t that same level of support for UKIP in Scotland as there is down south. I wonder if this is to do with their promises to sack all MSPs. I just don’t think there is any appetite for that sort of thing. Maybe to reduce the number of MSPs, but not to sack them all.

Elsewhere, it is evident that the BNP has got at least 1% of the regional vote. The Christian parties also put in surprisingly strong performances. Damp squibs from Scottish Voice and the Publican Party.

Among the bloggers up for election, the 9% Growth Party came last in Glasgow with 80 the votes (ahem, 0.0%). Adam Lyal’s Witchery Tour Party got 0.3% in the Lothians, which was just more than the similar Had Enough Party.

Oh, and a word about independence as well. There is no mandate for an independence referendum. The SNP have more seats than Labour, but they do not have a majority. Indeed, they only got around a third of the votes cast and all of the other independence-supporting parties of note saw drops in support.

And of course, not every vote cast for the SNP will have been a pro-independence vote. In many instances, it will have been a simple anti-Labour protest vote. Pro-Union candidates still have a majority in Parliament, and they picked up a majority of votes.

It’s not quite time yet.

Update: Forgot to say my bit about the Lib Dems. I’m glad they are not in a position where they can be sole kingmakers. I was getting the impression that they were a little bit too comfortable with the idea of being perpetually in government. It is not a healthy attitude.

And while I am usually sympathetic to the Lib Dems when they are accused of getting in to bed with anybody, it is easy to see how they can just focus on finishing third rather than, say, pursuing good policies.

Because of the electoral system used, a coalition needs to be formed, and the Lib Dems will usually find themselves in a position to be part of the Scottish Executive. I’m just glad that this time round they will need to get someone else — probably the Greens — on board as well.

I mentioned recently that I am a huge fan of the radio programme Up All Night. Every night on the programme a newspaper editor discusses what is going to be in the morning’s edition of his particular newspaper. Most of the editors do just that: explain what is going to be in the morning paper. But there is one person who consistently uses his spot on BBC radio as a political platform instead.

Without fail, every Tuesday morning, Hugh Whittow from the Daily Express sounds adamant that civilisation is on the brink of collapse. He always tries his very hardest to sound jaded and fed up with the world, although it doesn’t often sound that sincere. He just sounds like somebody trying very hard to roll their eyes as audibly as possible. Inevitably there will be a sentence somewhere in his diatribe that ends: “…and I’m afraid it’s just another example of political correctness gone mad.”

Hugh Whittow is infact one of my favourite examples of political correctness gone mad gone mad — the phenomenon where everything is blamed on political correctness gone mad to the point where the phrase “political correctness” ceases to mean anything whatsoever. The other day I heard somebody on a phone-in trying to explain that old ladies are searched at airports because of political correctness. And not because of, oh, say, security?!

Whittow takes the concept to extremes. Sure, most of it is the sort of thing you would expect from the paranoid perspective of the Express / Mail axis of bitter middle-aged ladies. The Daily Express seems to permanently be on a “crusade” of some sort or another. You see, our traditional British values of decency, fair play and being slightly suspicious of foreigners are under threat from an army of politically correct Brussels bureaucrats who secretly tried to bump Diana off.

Indeed, traditional family values are being pissed on from a great height. The problem is, we can’t work out what height that is exactly because the EU says it’s got to be measured in metric, and we still don’t know what a metre is in inches.

I have images of a young Whittow rolling around in nappies in front of his television and literally turning inside out with rage when he first heard a weather forecaster give the temperature in Celsius instead of Fahrenheit. I imagine he still hasn’t quite recovered from the decimalisation of the pound sterling.

This week the world was officially going to end because the Royal Mail has “ditched” Christian symbols on its annual series of Christmas stamps. What an abomination! Those politically correct do-gooders are getting rid of the true meaning of Christmas and are replacing images of Jesus with secular images like reindeer — all to avoid offending Muslims!

The thing is, non-Christian Christmas stamps are as traditional as Christmas stamps themselves. I thought I would take a look at my collection of Christmas stamps from my stamp collecting days, from before I came to see philately as a cynical money-spinner for the Post Office.

Indeed, the 1996 Christmas stamps consist of religious imagery like three wise men gawping at a UFO and some shepherds standing next to a squint tree. The 1998 images are all of angels, which is kind of Christian (the insert is full of religious guff aswell). The 1999 stamps look kind of abstract, but the series is called “Christians’ Tale”, so I’m guessing they are Christian images.

But what is this I see on the 1997 stamps, entitled “Christmas Crackers”?

Is that a secular image of Father Christmas I see there? Maybe it’s Jesus dressed up as Santa Claus.

Infact, here is an identical story about the secularisation of Christmas stamps in The Daily Telegraph from over two years ago.

See, this isn’t a new story. Killer Whale claims, in the comments at The Daily Mail Watch, that up to and including 2003 the Royal Mail issued 21 sets of ‘Christian’ Christmas stamps and 16 with a more secular theme.

And what is this I see here? The first ever Christmas stamp to be issued back in 1966, according to BBC News. I suppose the good readers of the Daily Express thought that this was a depiction of the fourth, lesser-known wise man.

No, I think the Daily Express is just telling big lies to sell newspapers. Given that the first ever Christmas stamp contained a drawing of a snowman, that would make secular Christmas stamps more traditional than religious ones! Oh, and by this measure the world ended forty years ago.

No it didn’t. Instead we have to suffer the same old whining old bumwarts hijacking the traditional Pagan festival with their tedious religious propaganda. Give it a rest!

One of the most interesting things about libertarians is how quickly their devotion to free markets and capitalism disappear so quickly as soon as it involves those dirty foreigners getting a piece of the action.

The Devil’s Kitchen likes to describe himself as a libertarian (as he did in a self-congratulatory post today) and makes much of his support for free markets — albeit almost always in terms of how much tax he has to pay.

But yesterday all of that talk about free markets was thrown out of the window when he approvingly posted a video of Swivel Eyed Farage on Sunday AM.

DK says:

And, on current showing, there is simply no major party that supports the libertarian agenda (I believe that UKIP are the closest that we have, hence my support for them).

Ukip libertarian? I hardly think so. Here is Swivel Eyed Farage in action.

I read one person somewhere (sorry, I’ve forgotten who) complaining that the amount of time Ukip was given on Sunday AM wasn’t enough. Having now watched the clip, I can understand why. If it continued for much longer it probably would have counted as a Party Political Broadcast. How Farage could get away with making such glaringly inconsistent statements almost in the same breath without anything less than fawning deference from Huw Edwards is beyond me.

Farage said:

Should somebody who’s interviewed as a school teacher and then changes faith midway through be allowed to teach a class of children when they can’t see her face? I wouldn’t have thought so, no.

Immediately afterwards, when Huw Edwards asked about the British Airways worker who was asked to cover her cross, Farage’s response was the exact opposite! One rule for Muslims and another for Christians.

Well I find that amazing, I mean British Airways are one of those companies that have consistently been anti-British… So I’m not surprised at all by BA’s behaviour.

Later on he says:

The underlying philosophy that runs through every single Ukip policy is that we want less government interference in our lives.

But predictably, just one minute later, he advocates the view that governments should be able to tell people where they can and can’t live. The reason why? As DK says:

His point about differing GDPs is a good one, I think, and forms the basis of my reservations on the unfettered free trade of peoples between countries. It seems to me that, inevitably, should you allow this, many more people will flow from the lower GDP countries into the high GDP countries and, realistically, that there will be far fewer emigrating to those lower GDP countries.

The fact that different countries have different GDPs is not a good argument against “the unfettered free trade of peoples between countries”. GDP is a measure of all of the income earned in an economy. So if you say that a country has a lower (per capita) GDP than another, that just means that the average income of a citizen of that country is lower.

Different people have different incomes. That is a fact of life. These differences in income exist within Europe. They also exist within the UK. They also exist within Kirkcaldy.

If this is so much of a problem that the government has to set some kind of limit to immigration, then it must also be enough of a problem to set a limit to the amount that people move within a country. There would be quotas on the number of people who can move from the Highlands to the Home Counties. They would build a moat around Ferguslie Park.

But they haven’t. That’s because the economy can cope with people of different economic backgrounds moving around the country. It is a fact that Scots prepared to move to England and English people prepared to move to Scotland in search of work will make more money than if they just stayed where they were born.

The economy as a whole benefits from this free movement of people. If Mr S from Scotland is really good at making widget X which is made in England, Mr S will move to England to work in job X because that’s what he’s good at, so he’ll make the most money there. And because he’s really good at his job, he makes widget X more efficiently than the average Mr E from England would have. Because Mr S is better at his job, firm X’s costs are lower and the benefits are spread to the economy as a whole.

Just because the line on the map has moved doesn’t make this fact untrue. And this isn’t just some pie in the sky economic theory. I am sure that everybody can think of several people who have moved long distances to get a job because they could see the clear benefits of doing so. DK himself is an Englishman living in Edinburgh for crying out loud! Just imagine how much of an economic shithouse the world would be if nobody ever moved away from their place of birth.

I really don’t see how it can be consistent to support a free market within a country but then advocate that the free trade — which is supposedly so beneficial to all — should end at the line drawn on a map.

Given that DK is such a “libertarian”, I am sure he will be familiar with the section of libertarian poster boy Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations dealing with protectionism (Book IV, Ch II). Smith might be talking about goods, but I cannot see any reason why what he says does not apply to labour aswell. If anyone has any reasons I would love to hear them.

Saying that the fact that countries have differing GDPs is a problem for a free trade area is a bit like saying that having firms of differing sizes is a problem in an economy. It is not. DK is probably right when he says, “there will be far fewer emigrating to those lower GDP countries,” if free trade of peoples is allowed.

This kind of thing is usually celebrated by libertarians. It’s freedom of choice, you see. So when there is competition, firms that don’t match the expectations of their customers have to adapt in order to survive. It is exactly the same for countries. When people can pick and choose where they live, governments are forced to take a long, hard look at the way they are running their economies. Sometimes they might even reform.

If, as libertarians suggest, it is the case that cutting back on welfare benefits, lowering corporate tax and so on improves a country’s economy and living standards, then open borders will force governments to adopt these policies as they try to attract jobs to their economies.

I thought that was what DK wanted? But by opposing the “free trade of peoples”, he could well be supporting the continuation of the welfare state.