I recently had to write an essay for university about changes in Scotland’s population since 1945. While I was writing that I happened, almost by chance, upon The Registrar General’s Annual Review of Demographic Trends 2004.

What’s so special about 2004? It was the 150^th anniversary of civil registration (which began in 1855, in case your arithmetic isn’t too hot). So the Registrar General took the opportunity to delve into the statistics and produce lots of interesting analysis on this historical trends of Scotland’s population as far back as records go.

While I should have been writing my essay, I found myself perusing the graphs. I’m that sort of person. Obsessed with graphs. I’ll share a few of the most interesting ones with you.

Sorry about the illegibility of some of these. I have to confess that I am stealing the Registrar General’s bandwidth (although this does not vex me because the public is paying for that bandwidth, and something tells me they won’t get me with the goatse treatment). The original images are huge (much bigger than they appear on the PDF), so I have had to crudely reduce them in size to fit in these pages.

Immigration

Immigrants flooding this country! Er, or not.

Literacy

The Registrar General used the number of people signing by mark while marrying as a crude measure of literacy up until 1915.

Marriages in Gretna

They are a much more modern phenomenon than you might imagine.

Divorce

I bet if you got divorced in the nineteenth century it was national news.

Death

My favourite topic! You can see the general long-term decline in the number of deaths. But more interestingly, the peaks a troughs become much less extreme, signifying improved medicinal technology and ability to cope with epidemics.

These are just a few of my favourites, but I could have included twice as many (to be honest, you’re lucky I didn’t). But if you’re interested in Scotland’s modern history and demography I’d definitely take a look at the full document.

I came across another of those political quizzes. This one matches you up with the US Presidential candidates. It’s quite smart.

You can choose which topics you’re interested in by distributing 20 points among 14 categories. I gave one point to each category then bumped up a few areas where I feel strongest. It then gives you a set of questions based on those topics.

Once you’ve answered them, it ranks the Presidential candidates in order of similarity. You can go right into each question and see how each of the candidates would answer each question, with all kinds of quotes, voting records and suchlike to back it up.

Of course, it’s not very fair for me to be waxing lyrical about American politics. I have never set foot in the country, and chances are I could have different views on American political issues if I actually lived there. A lot of these are very US-centric questions rather than the big ideological picture.

Still, it is interesting to learn a bit more about the candidates. The names we all see are Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani. Sometimes John McCain. It’s not often you hear of any of the others. But it’s important to learn about them.

I remember at around this stage of the last US Presidential election we were discussing the Democratic candidates in our modern studies class. Trying to work out which of the candidates were the most important, our teacher immediately scored off John Kerry because he was a no-hoper! (In retrospect, she was actually probably right.)

Anyway, the quiz. The candidate who comes out as most similar to me is someone I’ve never heard of before — Mike Gravel. We are 81% similar, with very similar views on drugs, civil liberties, gay rights, crime and punishment, abortion, environment and immigration. But we have dissimilar views on social security and economics.

Second is someone else I’ve never heard of — Christopher Dodd, with 75%. We are different on social security and very different on economics. Dennis Kucinich also has 75%, but we disagree on taxes and budget, social security and economics.

Of the big guns, Barack Obama is fourth with 74% (different on taxes and budget, social security and very different on crime and punishment (Obama supports the death penalty)). Hillary Clinton is 66% similar (different views on taxes and budget, drugs, social security and very different on crime and punishment).

All of the Democratic candidates score more highly than the Republican candidates. The top Republican candidate for me is Ron Paul — 9^th with 61%. We have very similar views on drugs, civil liberties and crime and punishment, but very different views on immigration, health care and abortion.

Rudy Giuliani only comes out 13^th with 47%. We have very similar views on environment and gun control, but very different views on gay rights, Iraq and foreign policy, health care, civil liberties, drugs and crime and punishment.

My least similar is my namesake, Duncan Hunter. We are only 30% similar, with similar views on social security (and even that is only because neither of us has an opinion on it).

Via Blah Blah Flowers.

I hate all blogging awards except for the ones I am nominated for. That means I hate all of them (apart from James Higham’s Blogpower awards!).*

One of the biggest problems is that there are just so many of them. The ones I always saw as the most important were the Bloggies — but perhaps that is just because they are the ones I came across first. Besides, I’ve never been nominated for them, so I hate them.

It’s a bit like degrees, as we have been discussing a few posts back. There are so many blogging awards that most of them mean zilch. So it’s quite funny to see Neil Clark acting as though he is some kind of cyber-god for winning a particularly flawed poll.

The full details are over at The Wardman Wire. Because you could vote multiple times (once a day, apparently), Neil Clark encouraged his readers to vote multiple times. Nineteen times in five days, to be exact.

Then when he won he went over to his patch on Comment is free and declared a blogging revolution — hilariously — “because my views are more in tune with ordinary people than most in the blogosphere”!

The only time I had previously come across Neil Clark before was when he wrote a particularly odious piece on Comment is free about the campaign to grant asylum to Iraqi employees for British forces. It rightly drew widespread condemnation from bloggers across the spectrum. (More on the Iraqi employees campaign here.)

However, this is perfectly in tune with his views on foreigners in general, so it seems. Mr Eugenides has pointed out that (as well as being a defender of Slobodan Milošević) Neil Clark is a candidate for the British People’s Alliance, which has among its policies the following:

The British People’s Alliance is also determined to expose, to halt, and to reverse the deliberate importation of a new working class whose members understand no English except commands, know nothing about workers’ rights in this country, can be deported if they step out of line, and (since they have no affinity with any particular part of this country) can be moved around at will, so that the old working class can be told to go hang, taking with it its unions, its minimum wage, its health and safety regulations, and so forth.

The British People’s Alliance is determined to expose, to halt, and to reverse the enforced bilingualism or multilingualism that transfers economic, social, cultural and political power to a bilingual or multilingual elite, so that those who are or will be excluded are or will be the English-speaking working class, black and white.

This is supposed to be a left-wing party, but it sounds more like the language of the BNP (complete with “some of my best friends are black” statement at the end). But it just goes to show — yet again — that the difference between left and right really is negligible. After all, big government is big government, and once it controls one part of the economy then control of other parts of our lives is not far behind.

Rather than left or right, what really matters is whether you are a liberal or an authoritarian. And ballot stuffer Neil Clark certainly isn’t a liberal.

(I will expand on my views on liberalism and statism in two separate posts soon.)

* I did actually win an award today, and coincidentally it was in a post about Neil Clark.

It is probably not a surprise to most people that MigrationWatch are a raving mob of fascist shits. Unlike some, I don’t waggle words like ‘fascist’ around lightly. But here is why I apply it to MigrationWatch and their chair Andrew Green.

People who are opposed to immigration like to say that “they take our jobs”. (Let us, for the time being, leave aside the fact that they also “give us more jobs”.) But so does everyone who enters the labour force. 16-year-olds for instance. Yet you do not (usually) hear anybody advocating quotas on the number of children born.

The only people who generally do advocate that people give birth less are environmentalists wary of a Malthusian catastrophe (a phenomenon that various people have believed has been imminent since the late 18^th century but has never happened). These environmentalists are people who are often lambasted by the very people who oppose immigration for similar reasons.

But today MigrationWatch appear to have advocated just that. Or at least, they have advocated it for those mucky foreigners. That is the only reading I get out of this quote (emphasis mine):

More than a quarter of babies born in Britain have at least one foreign-born parent, it emerged this week, up from just over a fifth in 2000. It is a striking statistic that in some quarters, predictably, provoked alarm. “Many people simply don’t understand how this could have happened without anyone being consulted,” Sir Andrew Green, chair of the rightwing anti-immigration group Migration Watch, wrote in the Daily Telegraph.

Without anyone being consulted? Is he suggesting that it is somehow the government’s job to impose a limit on births? Since when did there have to be a consultation before people are born?

This is sick stuff. As if it wasn’t abhorrent enough that they should seek to tell private individuals where they can and cannot live, they now appear to want to tell people when they can and cannot give birth.

It is like a policy from a hopelessly totalitarian government like China’s. The one child policy of China is widely condemned. But seemingly for MigrationWatch it would be A-okay to introduce something similar in Britain.

I agree with Chris Dillow’s point about markets.

There is one criticism of markets that has often baffled me. The idea that free markets are bad because they promote “individualism” and their participants are “selfish” does not make sense.

Even putting aside the idea that selfishness might be a good thing (a subject that I am ambivalent about), I do not really see where where markets got this “selfishly individualistic” image from. Anybody who is truly selfish would surely not last long in a market system.

In Adam Smith’s world, the bread maker gets what he wants by thinking about what his customer wants. In return, the customer gets what he wants by thinking about what the bread maker wants.

While the bread maker’s ultimate goal — to make money — is selfish (as is the customer’s), neither party gets anywhere without considering the other. The baker knows that he can make more money by pleasing his customers, so he has to think about what his customers want. By the same token, the customer will not get his bread unless he thinks about what the bread maker wants.

So in this system you cannot get what you want if you are selfish. This sounds like a paradox. But the fact that you can only get what you want by taking into account what others want is part of the genius of the market system.

The above transaction involving the bread maker is obviously an extremely simple example which doesn’t look too impressive on its own. But most people go through several such situations every day. I am sure both Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek saw markets as an intertwining network of social interaction. In such a system, you cannot possibly be an individualist! You cannot trade with yourself, can you?

Meanwhile, it is much easier to be a selfish individualist under the supposedly caring socialist system. This kind of arrangement has the potential to allow people to get by simply by sitting around doing nothing except watching television all day. They could spend their time without having a single generous thought about anyone else, and they could still pick up a benefits cheque at the end of the day.

While we are on the subject, here is another reason why markets should be celebrated rather than criticised. They can force bigots to face up to their prejudices.

Think of a racist who likes to buy a newspaper in the morning. If his local cornershop is run by a Pakistani businessman, the racist is forced to think twice. Does he swallow his pride and trade with a Pakistani, or will he spend extra energy and time going to a shop that is run by a white person but is further down the road?

Of course, the racist may well still decide to go to the shop that is further away. But this would make him a fool who ends up wasting a lot of time and energy because of a pretty prejudice.

The same applies to people who spend their time complaining about immigration but turn out to be more than happy to pay Polish immigrants whenever their house needs building work done.

Update: I should point out, in case it isn’t clear, that this is not meant to say that markets are perfect. Just that some of the arguments against it do not make sense.