One God Further - Anarchism Shows The Flaw In An Atheist Argument

I am sure that most of my readers support the political ideology that can be summed up as liberal democracy. Now, I don't mean supporting the Liberal Democrats, but that basic model of Western politics which has its emphasis on democracy and the rule of law.

Now take the anarchist. He will, like the person who has been brainwashed into supporting liberal democracy (which saturates society, with - and this is shocking - people being appointed to the House of Lords as representatives of certain sub-ideologies within the broad umbrella of liberal democracy), reject fascism and communism, but will go one ideology further - he will reject liberal democracy.

The thing is, the anarchist rejects fascism and communism for completely different reasons to those of the believer in liberal democracy. For the former, it is because he rejects all political ideologies; for the latter, it is because he has a strong belief that there is a political ideology that works, that is essential to the running of a free society, and that liberal democracy is an exclusive ideology, with fascism and communism being incompatible with its values.

We often hear an atheist argument that, like Christians, they are atheists with regards to Ra etc. but just go one god further.

As a Christian, Jesus makes an exclusivity claim. He is not there to be added on to existing ideologies (and I appreciate that there is a lot of syncretism around, and that even churches can play along with syncretism). Jesus is not there as another holy man, orbiting a central god with Buddha orbiting over there. Jesus is uniquely God.

A Christian rejects Ra because of Jesus's claim to exclusivity - Ra-worship is incompatible with being a Christian.

An atheist also rejects Ra, but for completely different reasons. That is because he rejects any deity.

This "we just go one god further" argument sounds plausible until you actually examine it in detail.

Scotland And The European Election Result

Earlier this year saw the eighth direct elections to the European Parliament, and Scotland saw the election of 2 Scottish National Party, 2 Labour, 1 Conservative and 1 UK Independence Party Members of the European Parliament.

At the May 2010 general election Scotland elected the following number of MPs:

• Labour - 41
• Liberal Democrat - 11
• Scottish National Party - 6
• Conservative - 1

If the European election results were repeated at a general election, then:

The Scottish National Party would gain 17 seats from Labour and 6 from the Liberal Democrats - a net gain of 23.

The Conservatives would gain 4 seats from the Liberal Democrats and 2 from Labour -a net gain of 6.

The Liberal Democrats would lose 4 seats to the Conservatives and 6 to the Scottish National Party - a net loss of 10.

Labour would lose 2 seats to the Conservatives and 17 to the Scottish National Party - a net loss of 19.

This would give a final result of:

• Scottish National Party - 29
• Labour - 22
• Conservative - 7
• Liberal Democrat - 1

The Liberal Democrats would have lost their deposit in 29 constituencies, the Greens in 6 and the Conservatives in 1. Labour, the Scottish National Party and UK Independence Party all achieved over 5% of the vote in every constituency in Scotland.

A proportional result (using the d'Hondt system) would give:

• Scottish National Party - 18
• Labour - 16
• Conservative - 10
• UK Independence Party - 6
• Green - 5
• Liberal Democrat - 4

At a constituency level we would have the following results:

Aberdeen North - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 32.50%
• Labour - 27.83%
• Conservative - 13.49%
• UKIP - 9.87%
• Green - 8.27%
• Liberal Democrat - 5.83%
• Others - 2.21%

SNP majority of 4.67% over Labour

Aberdeen South - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 25.49%
• Conservative - 23.75%
• Labour - 21.34%
• Liberal Democrat - 11.86%
• UKIP - 9.28%
• Green - 6.50%
• Others - 1.77%

SNP majority of 1.74% over Conservative

Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine - Conservative gain from Liberal Democrat

• Conservative - 29.63%
• SNP - 24.24%
• Liberal Democrat - 17.95%
• Labour - 11.18%
• UKIP - 9.97%
• Green - 5.09%
• Others - 1.95%

Conservative majority of 5.39% over SNP

Airdrie & Shotts - Labour hold

• Labour - 36.46%
• SNP - 34.72%
• UKIP - 11.09%
• Conservative - 7.32%
• Green - 5.33%
• Others - 3.12%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.95%

Labour majority of 1.74% over SNP

Angus - SNP hold

• SNP - 36.30%
• Conservative - 27.36%
• UKIP - 11.34%
• Labour - 11.07%
• Liberal Democrat - 6.12%
• Green - 5.58%
• Others - 2.23%

SNP majority of 8.94% over Conservative

Argyll & Bute - SNP gain from Liberal Democrat

• SNP - 28.41%
• Conservative - 18.93%
• Liberal Democrat - 18.87%
• Labour - 13.47%
• UKIP - 11.05%
• Green - 6.97%
• Others - 2.29%

SNP majority of 9.48% over Conservative

Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock - Labour hold

• Labour - 27.59%
• SNP - 26.67%
• Conservative - 24.28%
• UKIP - 10.94%
• Green - 5.10%
• Liberal Democrat - 3.04%
• Others - 2.38%

Labour majority of 0.91% over SNP

Ayrshire Central - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 27.86%
• Labour - 26.03%
• Conservative - 25.29%
• UKIP - 10.30%
• Green - 4.83%
• Liberal Democrat - 3.44%
• Others - 2.25%

SNP majority of 1.83% over Labour

Ayrshire North & Arran - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 33.36%
• Labour - 27.87%
• Conservative - 17.84%
• UKIP - 11.17%
• Green - 5.32%
• Others - 2.61%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.82%

SNP majority of 5.49% over Labour

Banff & Buchan - SNP hold

• SNP - 40.19%
• Conservative - 22.09%
• UKIP - 14.45%
• Labour - 8.65% (their lowest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Liberal Democrat - 7.04%
• Green - 4.75%
• Others - 2.83%

SNP majority of 18.11% over Conservative

Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk - Conservative gain from Liberal Democrat

• Conservative - 31.30%
• SNP - 20.80%
• Liberal Democrat - 15.12%
• UKIP - 13.27%
• Labour - 9.22%
• Green - 8.20%
• Others - 2.08%

Conservative majority of 10.50% over SNP

Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross - SNP gain from Liberal Democrat

• SNP - 29.62%
• Labour - 17.22%
• Liberal Democrat - 16.44%
• UKIP - 14.09%
• Conservative - 10.68%
• Green - 9.30%
• Others - 2.63%

SNP majority of 12.40% over Labour

Coatbridge, Chryston & Bellshill - Labour hold

• Labour - 45.90% (the highest share of the vote for any party in Scotland)
• SNP - 24.97%
• UKIP - 10.79%
• Conservative - 8.45%
• Green - 5.19%
• Others - 3.04%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.57%

Labour majority of 20.93% over SNP

Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch East - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 36.42%
• Labour - 33.49%
• UKIP - 10.99%
• Conservative - 7.80%
• Green - 6.38%
• Others - 2.65%
• Liberal Democrat - 2.27%

SNP majority of 2.93% over Labour

Dumfries & Galloway - Conservative gain from Labour

• Conservative - 32.00%
• SNP - 23.54%
• Labour - 21.07%
• UKIP - 13.91%
• Green - 4.82%
• Others - 2.53%
• Liberal Democrats - 2.14%

Conservative majority of 8.46% over SNP

Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale - Conservative hold

• Conservative - 32.80% (their highest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Labour - 18.15%
• SNP - 18.02%
• UKIP - 12.25%
• Liberal Democrat - 10.28%
• Green - 6.47%
• Others - 2.02%

Conservative majority of 14.66% over Labour

This seat is also the most Unionist seat. If you take the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and UKIP to be the Unionist parties, then they have 73.49% of the vote between them. If you consider the Nationalist vote to be the SNP and Greens, then these parties have 24.50% of the vote between them. Indeed, across Scotland, 58 constituencies would see the combined Unionist vote ahead of the combined Nationalist.

Dunbartonshire East - SNP gain from Liberal Democrat

• SNP - 25.44%
• Labour - 21.99%
• Conservative - 18.13%
• Liberal Democrat - 16.18%
• UKIP - 9.68%
• Green - 6.95%
• Others - 1.63%

SNP majority of 3.45% over Labour

Dunbartonshire West - Labour hold

• Labour - 38.04%
• SNP - 32.24%
• UKIP - 10.53%
• Conservative - 8.10%
• Green - 6.67%
• Others - 2.52%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.89%

Labour majority of 5.80% over SNP

Dundee East - SNP hold

• SNP - 41.00%
• Labour - 21.18%
• Conservative - 18.69%
• UKIP - 8.82%
• Green - 5.80%
• Liberal Democrat - 2.63%
• Others - 1.88%

SNP majority of 19.81% over Labour

Dundee West - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 39.94%
• Labour - 29.33%
• UKIP - 9.28%
• Conservative - 8.34%
• Green - 6.64%
• Liberal Democrat - 4.45%
• Others - 2.03%

SNP majority of 10.61% over Labour

Dunfermline & West Fife - Labour hold

• Labour - 36.63%
• SNP - 26.40%
• Conservative - 12.43%
• Liberal Democrat - 8.81%
• UKIP - 7.76%
• Green - 5.82%
• Others - 2.13%

Labour majority of 10.23% over SNP

East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 34.25%
• Labour - 31.21%
• Conservative - 13.66%
• UKIP - 10.19%
• Green - 6.83%
• Others - 2.52%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.34%

SNP majority of 3.04% over Labour

East Lothian - Labour hold

• Labour - 29.29%
• SNP - 24.38%
• Conservative - 20.88%
• UKIP - 9.91%
• Green - 8.09%
• Liberal Democrat - 5.70%
• Others - 1.74%

Labour majority of 4.90% over SNP

Edinburgh East - Labour hold

• Labour - 29.97%
• SNP - 26.40%
• Green - 16.91%
• Conservative - 11.31%
• Liberal Democrat - 7.16%
• UKIP - 6.63% (their lowest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Others - 1.62%

Labour majority of 3.58% over SNP

Edinburgh North & Leith - Labour hold

• Labour - 24.12%
• SNP - 22.05%
• Green - 20.95% (their highest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Conservative - 17.57%
• Liberal Democrat - 6.93%
• UKIP - 6.73%
• Others - 1.64%

Labour majority of 2.07% over SNP

Edinburgh South - Labour hold

• Labour - 23.19%
• Conservative - 21.30%
• SNP - 19.66%
• Green - 18.92%
• Liberal Democrat - 8.75%
• UKIP - 6.74%
• Others - 1.44%

Labour majority of 1.90% over Conservative

This is the seat in Scotland with the lowest winning share of the vote

Edinburgh South West - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 23.68%
• Labour - 23.19%
• Conservative - 22.84%
• Green - 13.92%
• UKIP - 7.85%
• Liberal Democrat - 6.94%
• Others - 1.58%

SNP majority of 0.49% over Labour

Edinburgh West - Conservative gain from Liberal Democrat

• Conservative - 24.95%
• SNP - 23.92%
• Liberal Democrat - 16.32%
• Labour - 13.35%
• UKIP - 11.61%
• Green - 8.14%
• Others - 1.70%

Conservative majority of 1.02% over SNP

Falkirk - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 33.20%
• Labour - 29.86%
• Conservative - 12.91%
• UKIP - 12.72%
• Green - 5.97%
• Others - 2.84%
• Liberal Democrat - 2.51%

SNP majority of 3.35% over Labour

Fife North East - Conservative gain from Liberal Democrat

• Conservative - 23.24%
• SNP - 21.28%
• Liberal Democrat - 19.50%
• UKIP - 15.27% (their highest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Labour - 10.53%
• Green - 8.25%
• Others - 1.92%

Conservative majority of 1.96% over SNP

Glasgow Central - Labour hold

• Labour - 32.60%
• SNP - 30.06%
• Green - 14.37%
• UKIP - 9.71%
• Conservative - 8.63%
• Others - 2.64%
• Liberal Democrats - 2.00%

Labour majority of 2.54% over SNP

Glasgow East - Labour hold

• Labour - 43.96%
• SNP - 29.43%
• UKIP - 11.30%
• Conservative - 6.81%
• Green - 4.67%
• Others - 2.57%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.28%

Labour majority of 14.53% over SNP

Glasgow North - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 27.33%
• Labour - 26.92%
• Green - 20.92%
• Conservative - 8.71%
• UKIP - 8.52%
• Liberal Democrat - 5.24%
• Others - 2.36%

SNP majority of 0.41% over Labour - this is the seat with the smallest majority in Scotland

Glasgow North East - Labour hold

• Labour - 43.15%
• SNP - 26.45%
• UKIP - 11.71%
• Green - 9.99%
• Conservative - 4.52% (their lowest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Others - 2.94%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.24%

Labour majority of 16.70% over SNP

Glasgow North West - Labour hold

• Labour - 35.20%
• SNP - 26.94%
• Green - 16.07%
• UKIP - 8.23%
• Conservative - 8.14%
• Liberal Democrat - 3.15%
• Others - 2.27%

Labour majority of 8.26% over SNP

Glasgow South - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 30.48%
• Labour - 28.18%
• Conservative - 14.74%
• Green - 11.01%
• UKIP - 7.57%
• Liberal Democrat - 5.90%
• Others - 2.12%

SNP majority of 2.30% over Labour

Glasgow South West - Labour hold

• Labour - 39.70%
• SNP - 32.86%
• UKIP - 12.11%
• Green - 5.68%
• Conservative - 5.66%
• Others - 2.80%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.19%

Labour majority of 6.83% over SNP

Glenrothes - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 37.77%
• Labour - 36.91%
• Conservative - 7.66%
• UKIP - 6.79%
• Green - 6.42%
• Others - 2.35%
• Liberal Democrat - 2.10%

SNP majority of 0.86% over Labour

Gordon - SNP gain from Liberal Democrat

• SNP - 34.53%
• Conservative - 19.32%
• Liberal Democrat - 13.36%
• UKIP - 11.51%
• Labour - 11.37%
• Green - 7.21%
• Others - 2.69%

SNP majority of 15.21% over Conservative

Inverclyde - Labour hold

• Labour - 35.88%
• SNP - 28.77%
• Conservative - 14.17%
• UKIP - 9.29%
• Liberal Democrat - 4.79%
• Green - 4.58%
• Others - 2.52%

Labour majority of 7.11% over SNP

Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey - SNP gain from Liberal Democrat

• SNP - 31.30%
• Liberal Democrat - 17.07%
• Conservative - 16.17%
• Labour - 15.44%
• UKIP - 10.74%
• Green - 7.30%
• Others - 1.97%

SNP majority of 14.23% over Liberal Democrat

Kilmarnock & Loudoun - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 35.64%
• Labour - 30.00%
• Conservative - 15.74%
• UKIP - 9.51%
• Green - 4.50% (their lowest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Others - 2.44%
• Liberal Democrat - 2.17%

SNP majority of 5.64% over Labour

Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath - Labour hold

• Labour - 38.38%
• SNP - 27.84%
• UKIP - 11.39%
• Conservative - 10.68%
• Green - 5.70%
• Liberal Democrat - 3.92%
• Others - 2.09%

Labour majority of 10.55%

Lanark & Hamilton East - Labour hold

• Labour - 32.59%
• SNP - 28.87%
• Conservative - 16.74%
• UKIP - 12.91%
• Green - 5.12%
• Others - 2.66%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.10% (their lowest share of the vote in Scotland)

Labour majority of 3.72% over SNP

Linlithgow & Falkirk East - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 32.87%
• Labour - 28.98%
• Conservative - 13.71%
• UKIP - 12.46%
• Green - 6.22%
• Others - 2.92%
• Liberal Democrat - 2.85%

SNP majority of 3.89% over Labour

Livingston - Labour hold

• Labour - 34.15%
• SNP - 33.12%
• UKIP - 11.72%
• Conservative - 8.74%
• Green - 6.07%
• Liberal Democrat - 3.36%
• Others - 2.84%

Labour majority of 1.03% over SNP

Midlothian - Labour hold

• Labour - 31.19%
• SNP - 28.90%
• Conservative - 13.16%
• UKIP - 10.68%
• Green - 8.61%
• Liberal Democrat - 5.17%
• Others - 2.28%

Labour majority of 2.29% over SNP

Moray - SNP hold

• SNP - 33.87%
• Conservative - 24.25%
• UKIP - 13.58%
• Labour - 13.10%
• Green - 7.13%
• Liberal Democrat - 5.34%
• Others - 2.73%

SNP majority of 9.62% over Conservative

Motherwell & Wishaw - Labour hold

• Labour - 41.25%
• SNP - 27.39%
• Conservative - 10.98%
• UKIP - 10.68%
• Green - 5.13%
• Others - 3.01%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.55%

Labour majority of 13.86% over SNP

Na H-Eileanan An Iar - SNP hold

• SNP - 43.60% (their highest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Labour - 24.27%
• UKIP - 11.16%
• Conservative - 10.03%
• Green - 6.59%
• Liberal Democrat - 3.20%
• Others - 1.16%

SNP majority of 19.34% over Labour

This is the only constituency where the combined Nationalist vote (50.19%) is more than the combined Unionist vote (48.65%)

Ochil & South Perthshire - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 31.37%
• Conservative - 25.51%
• Labour - 19.72%
• UKIP - 10.26%
• Green - 5.68%
• Liberal Democrat - 5.56%
• Others - 1.89%

SNP majority of 5.86% over Conservative

Orkney & Shetland - Liberal Democrat hold

• Liberal Democrat - 34.68% (their highest share of the vote in Scotland)
• SNP - 17.13% (their lowest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Green - 12.18%
• UKIP - 11.95%
• Conservative - 11.84%
• Labour - 10.23%
• Others - 2.00%

Liberal Democrat majority of 17.54% over SNP

Paisley & Renfrewshire North - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 31.21%
• Labour - 30.68%
• Conservative - 13.67%
• UKIP - 11.90%
• Green - 7.04%
• Others - 2.95%
• Liberal Democrat - 2.56%

SNP majority of 0.53% over Labour

Paisley & Renfrewshire South - Labour hold

• Labour - 38.82%
• SNP - 28.38%
• Conservative - 11.89%
• UKIP - 9.24%
• Green - 5.47%
• Liberal Democrat - 3.92%
• Others - 2.29%

Labour majority of 10.44% over SNP

Perth & North Perthshire - SNP hold

• SNP - 34.65%
• Conservative - 26.84%
• Labour - 12.11%
• UKIP - 9.97%
• Liberal Democrat - 8.09%
• Green - 6.75%
• Others - 1.59%

SNP majority of 7.81% over Conservative

Renfrewshire East - Conservative gain from Labour

• Conservative - 27.85%
• Labour - 26.39%
• SNP - 22.72%
• UKIP - 10.21%
• Green - 7.03%
• Liberal Democrat - 4.12%
• Others - 1.68%

Conservative majority of 1.46% over Labour

Ross, Skye & Lochaber - SNP gain from Liberal Democrat

• SNP - 29.47%
• Liberal Democrat - 23.59%
• Conservative - 12.82%
• UKIP - 12.41%
• Green - 10.36%
• Labour - 8.85%
• Others - 2.51%

SNP majority of 5.88% over Liberal Democrat

Rutherglen & Hamilton West - Labour hold

• Labour - 40.29%
• SNP - 24.83%
• Liberal Democrat - 9.48%
• UKIP - 8.92%
• Conservative - 7.74%
• Green - 5.72%
• Others - 3.01%

Labour majority of 15.46% over SNP

Stirling - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 28.88%
• Labour - 22.49%
• Conservative - 22.16%
• Green - 10.51%
• UKIP - 8.76%
• Liberal Democrat - 5.71%
• Others - 1.50%

SNP majority of 6.40% over Labour

One thing that is striking is the marginal nature of many seats. There are 14 constituencies where the gap between the first and third parties is less than 10%:

1. Edinburgh South West - 0.84% (SNP/Lab/C)
2. Ayrshire Central - 2.56% (SNP/Lab/C)
3. Edinburgh North & Leith - 3.17% (Lab/SNP/Grn)
4. Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock - 3.31% (Lab/SNP/C)
5. Edinburgh South - 3.53% (Lab/C/SNP)
6. Fife North East - 3.74% (C/SNP/LD)
7. Aberdeen South - 4.15% (SNP/C/Lab)
8. Renfrewshire East - 5.12% (C/Lab/SNP)
9. Glasgow North - 6.41% (SNP/Lab/Grn)
10. Stirling - 6.73% (SNP/Lab/C)
11. Dunbartonshire East - 7.31% (SNP/Lab/C)
12. East Lothian - 8.41% (Lab/SNP/C)
13. Edinburgh West - 8.62% (C/SNP/LD)
14. Argyll & Bute - 9.55% (SNP/C/LD)

In 5 of these case, the gap between the first and fourth parties is also less than 10%:

1. Edinburgh South - 4.27% (Lab/C/SNP/Grn)
2. Edinburgh North & Leith - 6.56% (Lab/SNP/Grn/C)
3. Fife North East - 7.97% (C/SNP/LD/UKIP)
4. Dunbartonshire East - 9.26% (SNP/Lab/C/LD)
5. Edinburgh South West - 9.76% (SNP/Lab/C/UKIP)

There is one more thing to note about these constituency results. The UKIP share of the vote doesn't change dramatically from constituency to constituency, and this is a property of how the figures are calculated.

We have two sets of data for each council area:

• The number of votes won by each party at the European election
• The number of votes won by each party in each ward at the last local elections

These are used to break down the European result by ward. For example, suppose a council area is split between two constituencies, with 60% of its electors in constituency A and 40% in B. It might seem logical to split each party's vote this way - so if a party won 10,000 votes, assume 6,000 were cast in constituency A and 40% in constituency B.

However, when we examine the local election results, we find that at the last local elections, one party won 75% of its local election vote in the part of the council area lying in constituency A. It would be sensible to reflect this in how we split the European result - so, assume 7,500 of its votes were cast in constituency A and 25% in constituency B.

It seems obvious to say this, but you can only vote for those who are actually standing. In a European election, everyone in Scotland can vote for the parties on the Scotland ballot paper. It doesn't matter whether you're in Selkirkshire or Ross-shire, you have the same set of candidates. At the General election, the main parties will contest practically every seat.

Now, not every party contests every seat in local elections. So we make an assumption that if someone supported party X, but X wasn't contesting the local election in their ward, they would choose to stay at home rather than vote for another party. In each ward, for each party that stands, we work out its share of the vote (as this is Single Transferable Vote, we consider first preferences) as a proportion of the electorate. We assume that if party X had stood in a ward which it didn't, then its vote would have been equivalent to its share in the contested ward where it achieved its worst result. For example, in a council area, X's worst result is 1.5% of the electorate in one ward. So, if there is a ward it didn't contest, with an electorate of 5,000, we assume that if it had stood, it would have won 75 votes (1.5% of 5,000) there.

For the generic "Others", we would, in the example above, put 60% of their vote in constituency A and 40% in constituency B. And likewise if a party didn't contest any wards in a council area.

For Scotland, the local results used are from May 2012 - when UKIP didn't contest all that many wards. This explains why their vote doesn't vary much. There may be pockets of support (look at the Greens in Glasgow's constituencies, for example) - the strong result in Fife North East can be explained by the influence of the East Neuk & Landward ward. The next local elections are May 2017 (assuming Scotland is still part of the UK), and it is likely that, now that UKIP has its first MEP, it will make a push to gain seats in the Scottish Parliament in May 2016 and then focus on local elections the following year. When I break the May or June 2019 European elections down into Westminster constituencies, there will be more data to use.

Whatever Happened To Kirkintilloch West?

I have been having a look at the Scottish European election results and I just want to note something about the name of Dunbartonshire East constituency - there are some constituencies, such as Ipswich and Poole, which might give the impression that they contain the town in question.

The Ipswich constituency contains 81% of Ipswich itself, while the remainder lies in Suffolk Central & Ipswich North. The Poole constituency contains 64% of Poole, with the remainder split between Bournemouth West and Dorset Mid & Poole North.

Yet, this doesn't get reflected in constituency names - there is no Ipswich South, Bournemouth West & Poole East or Poole South.

Only 45% of the Norwich North constituency lies in Norwich itself, with the remainder split between the Norfolk towns of Hellesdon, Sprowston and Thorpe St Andrew. However, here it would be tricky to come up with an accurate name - you either come up with a long-winded thing like Norwich North, Sprowston, Thorpe St Andrew & Hellesdon, or you rely on a short name which reflects a minority of the constituency.

Every Boundary Commission has a trade-off between accuracy and simplicity when it comes to constituency names.

In Yorkshire it gets interesting. You would not be surprised that Bradford East (Liberal Democrat), Bradford South (Labour) and Bradford West (held since a by-election in March 2012 by Respect - The Unity Coalition) are in Bradford. Yet they only make up 59% of Bradford - with the remainder being in two constituencies, Keighley (Conservative) and Shipley (also Conservative), making Bradford unique among British cities by having MPs for 4 parties representing it.

Next door, only 63% of Leeds lies in constituencies with the city mentioned in their name - Leeds Central, Leeds East, Leeds North East, Leeds North West and Leeds West. However, there are 7 constituencies lying totally in Leeds, with Elmet & Rothwell (Leeds to the east of Leeds East) and Pudsey (Leeds to the west of Leeds West). There is also an eighth constituency - Morley & Outwood - which covers the southern part of Leeds but also parts of Wakefield.

When it comes to the city of Wakefield, only 28% lies in the constituency of that name. The other two Wakefield constituencies - Hemsworth and Normanton, Pontefract & Castleford - both contain more of Wakefield than the Wakefield constituency does!

A major factor is the way local government has developed, with cities such as Bradford, Leeds or Wakefield extending into rural and semi-urban areas, absorbing areas with town names.

There is a constituency containing the name Kirkintilloch East - yet you would look in vain for another constituency with Kirkintilloch in its name. But there nearly was...

Prior to the May 2005 general election, the Boundary Commission for Scotland drew up new constituencies for Scotland, following the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004 decoupling the Scottish Parliament constituencies from the House of Commons ones.

Prior to that, there had been constituencies such as Clydebank & Milngavie; Coatbridge & Chryston; Cumbernauld & Kilsyth and Strathkelvin & Bearsden.

There is no town or city called "Strathkelvin" - it was the name of a District Council set up by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and then abolished under the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994, which ensured that all of Scotland was covered by unitary authorities - the anti-devolutionist Conservative government unwittingly doing something that has to be done prior to devolution (to avoid there being three tiers of local/regional government.

Strathkelvin was basically the towns of Bishopbriggs, Chryston and Kirkintilloch and the villages around them (so even the "Strathkelvin & Bearsden" constituency name was inaccurate, as the Chryston area was not in the constituency). Under the 1994 reforms, this area was split between the council areas of East Dunbartonshire (Bishopbriggs, Kirkintilloch) and North Lanarkshire (Chryston). Clydebank & Milngavie was another constituency split between council areas - the Clydebank area ended up in West Dunbartonshire, while Milngavie joined with Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch.

When the Boundary Commission drew up its proposals for 2005 (which are still in force), it suggested a Bishopbriggs, Bearsden & Kirkintilloch West, reflecting the fact that Kirkintilloch would be split across constituencies. The name wasn't totally accurate - convenience strikes again - as there was no mention of Milngavie. But the Commission settled on Dunbartonshire East - again, not totally accurate as it is smaller than the council area.

What Would The Apostle Paul Make Of Me Stuffing My Face At My Desk?

Well, he seems quite clear about it, and it is a sin I struggle with:

Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. (Phil. 3:19)

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Gal. 5:16-24)

While the Galatians passage doesn't specifically mention gluttony, tie it in with Philippians and you see that this is a desire of the flesh - it comes under idolatry, as for a glutton their god is situated in their stomach.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (I Cor 6:9-11)

So, there we have it. Short and simple.

Except that's not what I'm talking about. There is a lot in the New Testament about eating which is not about gluttony, but about respect. If we go back to Galatians 5, we find that the Apostle Paul talks about freedom:

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (v.13)

We're free in Christ - but this isn't an excuse to please ourselves, but to serve others. And one way to serve is to avoid stumbling blocks.

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honour of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honour of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honour of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written,

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”

So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Rom. 14)

Note that Paul is not saying vegetarians have a weak faith. I remember when I started working for Methodist Homes for the Aged and being shocked that meat was being served. I explained that up till then, all the Methodists I had know had been vegetarians. As a result, I had simply assumed that Methodists put meat in the same category as alcohol - something to be avoided.

And can I also say - if someone does hold a different opinion to you, don't smugly assume they are the "weaker brethren". They might be right, and you wrong; or it might not matter either way.

Why does Paul talk about meat? Well, we can look at what he wrote to the Corinthians:

Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from Whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things and through whom we exist.

However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. (I Cor. 8)

This was an issue in Corinth at the time - all meat sold in the market had been sacrificed to idols. While some Christians would know that these idols were nothing, others could think that a Christian eating such food was engaging in worship of idols, and was adopting Syncretism. That could then lead to a Christian thinking "oh, so it's OK for me to worship X alongside Jesus". With halal meat being served more in the United Kingdom, this could become an issue that will become more relevant as time goes on.

It's not just about food - really it is anything that could lead a Christian to go back to something that was an idol for them, regardless of whether it was an idol for us. I remember a conversation with one Christian man recently - his church had been holding meetings in a pub, as part of outreach to men. Now, I am teetotal, but I don't force that on other Christians. But, he mentioned, there is a slight concern - what about men who were alcoholics before becoming Christians? Christian men can enjoy a pint with their mates, but it just takes one drink for an ex-alcoholic to begin the journey to no longer being an ex-alcoholic. The sight of his brothers sipping beer could be too much for him, and so he goes to the bar....

But what I'm thinking of isn't gluttony. Nor is it meat sacrificed to idols. It's something else Paul wrote about:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the Gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (I Cor. 9:19-23).

A tricky verse - Paul is not calling for us to be chamaeleon Christians (or Karma Chamaeleon Christians when reaching out to Hindus).

I have recently started a new job. When in a workplace, there can be huge religious differences. Some places you get the twenty-/thirty-somethings who see Christianity as a relic from the last century and have a world which is post-post-Christian (in a post-Christian society there are still vestiges of Christian heritage). Or, even tougher, the people who are Christians because "this is a Christian country" and "the Queen is Head of the Church of England", and all you need is to be "respectable", not do anything seriously wrong and make sure you do a good turn every day, and you've passed. Or you get the adherents of Christmasianity who want to convert everyone.

And then there is the different environment, one which I am in again. And it's the one I prefer, if I am totally honest. It's the one where you see the turban and the khimār, the colourful shalwar kameez, or where someone shows off her henna tattoo skills.

It's the world where Christianity is just another minority faith.

It's the environment where you work late on a Thursday, ask a passing colleague for help with a case, and his response is to say that he'll help when he's back from prayers.

It's the multi-cultural world.

It's the world that the early Church had to exist in.

What's this got to do with food? Well, it's about food and respect.

I have found myself with Muslim friends. Christianity has developed a reputation for being quite wussy and there are groups - primarily Christian Vision for Men - who are keen to develop a male-friendly expression of Christianity. What I notice about Muslims I have got to know is that there is that combination of rejecting the laddish lifestyle that often seems an essential part of being male ("Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?") and at the same time being macho. There is no contradiction between holding a faith and being masculine - something the church has lost.

Currently it is Ramadam. So for them it is a time of fasting. Through conversations I have learned that it involves a lot of self-discipline, and is tough.

And I snack at my desk.

I'm not the only one, but what temptation does it throw in the path of a faster when he sees people snacking around him?

Now, if it were Christians fasting, then it would be clear cut. Respect that. But when it comes to Muslims? I am leaning towards Paul's "all things to all people" line and thinking that I will not eat around them. Just respecting what they are doing without joining in or agreeing with the faith in which they are doing it.

How To Select The Commission President

With the choice now having been made, I have given some thought as to how the President of the European Commission should be chosen for 2019 onwards.

The key thing to keep in mind is that there needs to be a balance between the centre (the directly-elected European Parliament) and the member states (represented in the European Council).

What I think is also needed is a third leg to this - bringing the member states in via their national Parliaments. I have already outlined how the European Parliament should have a bicameral structure with Senators drawn from Members of National Parliaments (MNPs). And maybe it is time for MNPs, as well as Heads of Government, to have a say.

With this in mind, I note the One Member One Vote reforms of the mid-nineties in electing the Labour party leader and deputy leader. This is done using the Alternative Vote, with there being three equal sections in the Electoral College - the parliamentary party, trade unions & socialist societies, and constituency parties.

The first thing to do is to look at the number of Members of the European Parliament that each nation has, and its voting strength in the European Council and Council of Ministers:

Country	MEPs	Council
Germany	96	29
France	74	29
Italy	73	29
United Kingdom	73	29
Spain	54	27
Poland	51	27
Romania	32	14
Netherlands	26	13
Belgium	21	12
Czech Republic	21	12
Greece	21	12
Hungary	21	12
Portugal	21	12
Sweden	20	10
Austria	18	10
Bulgaria	17	10
Denmark	13	7
Finland	13	7
Slovakia	13	7
Croatia	11	7
Ireland	11	7
Lithuania	11	7
Latvia	8	4
Slovenia	8	4
Cyrpus	6	4
Estonia	6	4
Luxembourg	6	4
Malta	6	3
Total	751	352

One country to look at is Ireland, and the method for nominating its President, who can be nominated one of three ways:

• At least 20 members of the Oireachtas (which is comprised of 166 members of the Dáil Éireann and 60 of the Seanad Éireann)
• At least 4 councils
• Self-nomination in the case of a President who has served once

At the moment, the European Council can only nominate one candidate at a time, by Qualified Majority Voting. One change could be for there to be a genuine election, with member nations nominating. If we look at the Irish example, then with there being 352 votes in the European Council, 20/226 of this is 31 votes.

Now, no country can muster 31 votes on its own - the Big Four would all need the support of just 1 other country. Allowing a candidate to be nominated by 31 Council votes would mean that the European People's Party and the Party of European Socialists would cross that hurdle. The Alliance of Liberals & Democrats for Europe tend to lead Governments in small nations, and both they and the Alliance of European Conservatives & Reformists would not pass the threshhold on their own. Remember, though, that there are wildcard members of the Council, who could throw their weight behind a minor party, or maybe a coalition Government could use its Council votes to nominate a candidate from the junior partner.

Note that I said nomination should come from the member nations. In Ireland, there will be party political councillors who nonetheless, help give their council's nomination to an Independent candidate. They are not saying they support that person - they are just saying they think that person should be on the ballot.

In addition, it seems normal for Commission Presidents to serve 2 terms.

With this in mind, I suggest the nomination requirements should be:

• 31 or more votes in the European Council
• Resolutions from 4 or more national Parliaments
• Self-nomination from the sitting Commission President if he or she is in their first term

Note that in this nomination process, there is no role for MEPs.

When it comes to the actual voting, then there should be a weighting of votes. MEPs, MNPs and the European Council each have one-third of the votes.

To see how this would work in practice, consider the United Kingdom. The European Parliament as a whole would have 1/3 of the vote. As 3 x 751 is 2,253, each MEP's vote would be worth 1/2,253 of the whole in the Electoral College. Between them, the United Kingdom MEPs would have 73/2,253 of the total Electoral College vote - equivalent to 3.24% of the whole.

Between them, our MPs would also have 73/2,253 of the whole vote. With 650 MPs, this works out as each MP's vote having a weight of 73/1,464,450. That is just under a twenty-thousandths of the total vote in the Electoral College.

Finally, we look at the Prime Minister. As we have 29 votes in the European Council, his vote would have a weight of 29/(3 x 352) = 29/1,056 of the whole Electoral College. This would be equivalent to 62 MEPs or 551 MPs.

One complaint from Eurosceptics is that MEPs are "federalist" and would support candidates with a "federalist" agenda. As this system would give national Parliaments equal weighting with the European Parliament, MNPs can form a natural counterbalance to MEPs (and indeed, two-thirds of the votes in the Electoral College would be exercised by national politicians). For the more enthusiastic Europhiles, this would give a Commission President with a stronger mandate, elected in a process involving more than one candidate, drawn from national Parliaments, national Governments and the European Parliament.

You Started The War - How The Present Informs The Past

I remember a conversation I had with my then boss, who knew of my interest in astronomy. He had been asked by one of his children whether aliens existed. I outlined why I didn't think so, but added that if we ever found aliens - or they found us - it wouldn't be something we knew in advance. You're not going to get up one morning thinking that by evening humanity will know it's not alone.

Consider the big news stories - the death of Diana, Princess of Wales; the World Trade Center being destroyed; the London Tube bombings etc. - and you'll notice a common thread. Namely that they happen out the blue. We all went to bed on 30 August 1997, 10 September 2001 and 6 July 2005 not expecting that the following day was going to be anything out of the ordinary. Some events we know in advance - we know when the Scottish independence referendum, the general election, the American Presidential election are going to be.

But the big events that dominate the years that follow them are a combination. On one hand we can have 20/20 hindsight and see a progression of events that led up to them. But on the other hand they are genuinely unexpected.

Today sees the centenary of Franz Ferdinand being assassinated and this led to the First World War weeks later.

I remember one exercise we did in A-level History when we were examining the many causes for the War. And that was to split into 6 groups - I think we were the UK, Serbia, Germany, Russia, France and Austria-Hungary - and debate whose fault the war was, using our knowledge of history. One thing we were all agreed one was that poor Serbia was the innocent party.

A couple of years later I popped back and caught up with my former teachers. I asked my History teacher whether she still did that session. Yes, she did. And I wanted to know whether - given this was the midst of the Yugoslav Civil War and we saw reports of Serbian aggression - her students were as keen as we had been to see Serbia as the blameless country.

She replied that she found her students were more willing to put some of the blame for the War onto Serbia.

The facts of what happened in 1914 hadn't changed. Perception had changed as we view history through our own perspectives.

In sci-fi there is retconning - retrospective continuity. And we all do it.

Retconning isn't when a fresh understanding is put on events based on evidence that has come to light later. One year we think that a celebrity is doing a lot for charity as he's a genuinely charitable man. When we reinterpret that as him using charitable causes to get close to children to sexually abuse, we are not retconning.

Retconning is where we take what someone later did and reinterpret their past through that lens, without evidence. For example, anyone interested in political history will know that in August 1931, Labour Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald ditched most of his Cabinet and formed a Government with the Conservatives and Liberals. For some on the left, MacDonald must have been planning that for a very long time.

MacDonald first became an MP by winning Leicester in the January/February 1906 general election. By "winning Leicester" I mean becoming one of its MPs (it was a 2-seater), unseating the Conservatives' John Rolleston - who had been elected at the Khaki election of October 1900, the final general election of the nineteenth century and the last held in the reign of Queen Victoria. Rolleston had ended the tradition of Leicester returning 2 Liberal MPs which dated back to the July 1865 general election. In 1900 MacDonald had stood, but come fourth.

In 1906, due to the Lib-Lab pact, Leicester's Liberals only put up one candidate. But just suppose MacDonald had been craving high office. Labour's position after 1906 was as the fourth largest party in the House of Commons. Sure, in the following elections (January/February 1910, December 1910, December 1918) they slowly increased in size, but a reasonable comparison is the slow growth of the Liberal Democrats from April 1992 onwards (May 1997, June 2001 and May 2005 all saw the Liberal Democrats increase in number of MPs).

But no-one could have expected that by 1924 there would be a Labour Government - with MacDonald leading it - and the Liberals would have collapsed. That is equivalent to the Liberal Democrats going from 20 MPs in 1992 to not just being junior coalition partners after the May 2010 general election, but forming a Government on their own with one of the 1992 intake as Prime Minister.

If MacDonald had craved office, surely the logical thing would have been to ask the Liberals to run 2 candidates in Leicester in 1906 - with him as the second one - so he could then develop a career beginning as a backbench Liberal MP. This was the Liberal party at its height, unaware of the collapse to come.

Whenever dealing with people, countries or organisations, always avoid retconning their past based on what they did later on.

Go On Dave, Be More Maggie On Europe

I saw a very recent article on the Conservative Home website, headed Cameron chooses to be the heir to Thatcher not the heir to Wilson.

I know some of my readers may be too young to remember former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. So here is a picture:

Thatcher is the lady on the right.

She is, of course, campaigning in the June 1975 referendum on the United Kingdom remaining in the European Communities following re-negotiations by the then Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. If there was a "Wilsonian pretence", then Thatcher is clearly going along with it.

Now, of course, you could argue that Thatcher would not have agreed to ideas such as "ever closer union". This phrase did not originate in Lisbon, or even in Maastricht. The opening paragraph of the Treaty of Rome states:

DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe,

It's not buried away in the small print, or in a paragraph laden with Eurojargon. Even someone with the attention span of a goldfish would have no difficulty reading that far.

If we turn to the actions of the Thatcher Government, then there is a major piece of legislation known as the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, which brings the Single European Act into law.

This includes:

2. In Article 7, second paragraph of the EEC Treaty the terms after consulting the Assembly shall be replaced by in co-operation with the European Parliament.

3. In Article 49 of the EEC Treaty the terms the Council shall, acting on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee shall be replaced by the Council shall acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, in co-operation with the European Parliament and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee.

These were significant changes. The era of all votes in the European Council and the Council of Ministers being unanimous had gone, to be replaced by Qualified Majority Voting. A quid pro quo was the enhancement of the European Parliament's powers.

It was the Thatcher Government that signed away the national veto, accepting that from then on, European law could be imposed on us against our will. But that meant neither could other countries veto. Sometimes there are those who consider themselves Thatcherites who argue that she didn't understand what she was agreeing to, or that faceless mandarins in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office misled her. This is Thatcher, the scholarship girl who always ensured she was on top of her homework, we are talking about.

As Peter Riddell notes on the Institute for Government website, one thing to learn from Thatcher is:

Pick your fights. Lady Thatcher never lacked courage but she could be cautious. She deferred a battle over pit closures in early 1981 when coal stocks were low but was far better prepared in 1984 when the NUM triggered a strike without a ballot, which not only divided their own members but occurred when the Government was in a stronger position.

Remember, this is a Prime Minister who resigned when she knew that being re-elected as Conservative leader was a battle she could not win. She would compromise rather than fight a losing battle.

I really have to question whether - if she had been Prime Minister yesterday - she would have fought the losing battle to prevent Jean-Claude Juncker becoming Commission President-Nominate. Having established a reputation for toughness, she never took the approach of "Coo-ey! It's me, over here, being tough. Look at how tough I'm being" that certain later politicians feel the need for. Would her approach yesterday have been more "Now, Jean-Claude, you'll need to appoint a Commissioner for the Internal Market...."?

Yesterday was no victory for the United Kingdom. All Prime Minister David Cameron got was keeping the Bone-Carswell section of the Conservative parliamentary party on his side for a few more weeks. It was the triumph of teenage politics - self-destructive, and an eagerness not to lose face in front of mates who are egging you on. I think we can forget about a British politician taking a senior post in the 2014-19 European Commission.