As I was putting the tree, tinsel and baubles away this week (yes, I’m one of those people), I was reflecting on the Christmas season which is now coming to a close and we now find ourselves in that awkward bit between Christmas and Hogmanay.

Basically, you don’t know what day of the week it is and it’s still semi-acceptable to have chocolate for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

I feel like I spend most of my time as a dad trying to remind my son and daughter that Christmas isn’t just about presents and food. For us, especially as a family with a Christian faith, Christmas is fundamentally about the birth of Jesus Christ.

One of the things I love most about the Christmas message is the fact that Jesus wasn’t born to upper-class, royal parents and shown off to the world on the steps of the Lindo wing at St Mary’s Hospital.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph were refugees who sought refuge in a stable after a long and arduous journey.

That’s why I’ve found the last month at Westminster particularly depressing – even more so than usual. Because the political backdrop to Christmas this year – and I suspect much of the new year to come – has been focused on immigration and small boats crossing the English Channel.

Now, I’m the first to admit that my views on immigration are probably about as liberal as they come and, frankly, I’m incredibly proud of that. I happen to believe that immigration enriches our society culturally, but it also makes sense economically - not least because we have a declining and ageing population. In short, this means that, without net inward migration, we have fewer folk paying into the pot to fund future infrastructure projects, pensions, etc.

Sadly, not everyone in Westminster views immigration as being a positive thing. Indeed, for the two big parties at Westminster, immigration is increasingly becoming the ‘issue of the day’ which I fear will come to define the next UK general election in England.

When it comes to the Tories and immigration policy, what you see is what you get. Dog whistle politics, pound shop Enoch Powells and using refugees as a political football.

That’s because it’s easier to blame helpless asylum seekers and refugees for all of society’s ills rather than confront the fact that the extreme poverty and grotesque inequality these islands have is the result of decades of Westminster’s economic mismanagement.

So, in many respects the Tories cynical positioning on issues like small boat crossings and processing asylum seekers in Rwanda (how much will that cost tax payers?) is no surprise but what of the Labour Party and its leader, the Right Honourable Sir Keir Starmer KC? How have they come to a position of not standing up against this dangerous, divisive rhetoric on immigration?

To understand this, you’ve got to realise that winning Government in a UK General Election largely comes down to about 80 or so seats. In the last election, the Tories did that by winning over what’s known as the red wall – basically seats in England, which had traditionally voted Labour but flipped to the Tories due to issues like Brexit and immigration. Think market towns, seaside resorts and places which previously had heavy industry, such as the North East of England.

It appears that Labour has decided that, in order to win those seats back, they have to speak the language of the Tories and be seen to be equally as tough on immigration policy. That saddens me because, rather than confront the Tories on the immorality and economic illiteracy of such policies, Labour are quite literally in the same boat as the Tory party when it comes to the issue of immigration.

At the last session of PMQs before Parliament broke up for Christmas, I sat in the chamber, in front of Labour MPs who were hurling abuse at Rishi Sunak for not doing enough to tackle immigration. We are now well and truly beyond the looking glass, folks, and it’s a depressing insight into the battle lines along which the next election is likely to be fought in England.

Thankfully, in Scotland, the next election will be fought along radically different battle lines, and they will fundamentally be related to issues of democracy.

That is, who should decide Scotland’s future? Should it be Sunak and Starmer or the people of Scotland? Surely Scotland can do better than two parties fighting it out to see who is closer to the politics of Nigel Farage?

Consecutive polling and public attitude surveys show that Scots consistently have a more favourable view when it comes to immigration matters but the debate at Westminster, I believe, shows two things.

Firstly, that immigration policy decided in London will never suit Scotland – so we must be independent and make those decisions ourselves, because neither Labour or the Conservatives have the answers to Scotland’s problem which has historically been emigration, not immigration.

And secondly, that if Mary and Joseph had been seeking refuge from the UK Government, then it’s depressingly probable that the Baby Jesus would have been born in a processing unit in Rwanda – not that lowly stable in Bethlehem.