Questions to which the answer is 'do you know what, I would LOVE to answer your question, but I've just remembered I've got to read Anna Karenina, and there isn't a second to lose'

As has been pointed out by several people already, Labour's excuse for dozens of their MPs (including their deputy Scottish leader) failing to show up in the Commons to vote against the Bedroom Tax doesn't actually make sense. The rules stipulate that the pairing arrangement with the Tories cannot be used on votes of great importance. So that leaves only two possibilities - either Labour are saying that the Bedroom Tax is not a matter of importance (which would utterly destroy their credibility in the eyes of many Scots), or those MPs should have turned up to vote.

But it's always a huge mistake at a time like this to underestimate the inventiveness of Scottish Labour's one-man online presence Duncan Hothersall. When all the plausible excuses have run out, have no fear, Dunc will still find an implausible one to cling to with all his strength. Here's what he dreamt up for the occasion this time -

Duncan Hothersall : No surprise; when the Tories and the Lib Dems vote in favour of the #bedroomtax, in Scotland it's Labour who get the blame. #brokenpolitics

Natalie McGarry : There is no other commitment an MP has at the moment more important than voting against #bedroomtax - even if Unwinnable.

Duncan Hothersall : How much public money are you prepared to spend on transit for an unwinnable vote? Money that could pay for public services.

Now let's try and suppress our guffaws for a moment (I must admit it was the '#brokenpolitics' hashtag that really cracked me up), and do Duncan the courtesy of working his point through to its logical conclusion. The thing is, of course, that the vast majority of votes at Westminster on contentious government policies are 'unwinnable' for Labour. (The reason they're unwinnable, let's not forget, is the Neanderthal tribalism displayed by the likes of Duncan's hero Tom Harris, who helped to sabotage any possibility of cooperation between Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the days after the 2010 general election, thus ushering into office a majority Tory-led coalition.) So, according to the Dunc Dinktum, all Labour members outwith the immediate vicinity of London should be saving valuable funds for public services by not attending any of those votes.

Simple question, Duncan - why don't they do that? And if you actually believe what you say, why aren't you angry that they don't do that?

Simple answer - because you don't believe what you say. Not one word.

Questions to which the answer is "Me!"

We're all hugely indebted to Andrew Morton for his illuminating report for Wings from behind enemy lines, at the 'launch' (do these things ever have a follow-through?) of Better Together Musselburgh.  The obvious highlight (if that's the right word) was this cringe-inducing question from Tory MSP Gavin Brown -

"What Scottish soldier, proudly serving in the British army, would want to join the Scottish forces and spend their time parading up and down in a kilt in front of Edinburgh castle waiting for tourists to take their picture?"

Leaving aside the obvious point that, regrettably, this particular brand of Brigadoon Separatism isn't actually on offer from anyone, I would imagine the literal answer to Mr Brown's question would go something like this -

"One who wants to be well-paid without facing the risk of being blown to kingdom come in a pointless and illegal war."

Questions to which the answer is "don't ask questions with your mouth full, you obnoxious child"

It's strategy, Jim, but not as we know it. The No campaign seem to have convinced themselves that the masterstroke that will win this referendum is the revival of Labour Hame's highly-successful (ahem) Questions to Which the Answer is 'Er...' series.

I thought I'd take the liberty of replying to some of the more straightforward of the latest batch of '500 questions' - it'll free up our finest minds to deal with the questions that are cunning enough to require more than three seconds to answer. A word of warning - it's just possible you may spot a couple of recurring themes here.

Q. How would Scotland be better represented in the international community after independence if it was no longer a member of the G7, G8 or G20 as it currently is within the UK?

A. Because we are currently "represented in the international community" by David Cameron and William Hague.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the Food and Agriculture Organisation?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the International Atomic Energy Agency?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the International Civil Aviation Organisation?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the International Labour Organisation?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of UNESCO?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the World Food Programme?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the World Health Organisation?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the World Meterological Organisation?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the World Tourism Organisation?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the Commonwealth?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the OECD?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the International Olympic Committee?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of Interpol?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the International Maritime Organisation?

A. Apply.

Q. What changes would an independent Scotland make to personal taxation bands?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. Rest assured that an independent Scotland will not be a one-party state, and that multi-party elections will be held. As three of the five main parties that will contest those elections are currently part of the No campaign, in many ways you guys are slightly better placed to answer this question than we are. (Unless you're not very optimistic about getting elected. But it can't be that.)

Q. Would an independent Scotland introduce a 10p tax rate?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. Would a Local Income Tax be introduced in a separate Scotland? If so, when?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What would be an independent Scotland’s approach to fiscal policy, and what would be the implications for taxation of business?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be the tax allowance on business mileage?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be the rates for Company Car taxation?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be the exemptions applied for Company Car taxation?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be the Capital allowances for Ultra Low emission vehicles?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be the Capital allowances for energy saving machinery and equipment?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be the Capital allowances for railway assets and ships?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be the Capital Allowances for mineral extraction?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. Will Air Passenger Duty continue to be collected in a separate Scotland?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be the Air Passenger Duty Rate for differing types of flights i.e. long/short haul?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. Will Highland/Island airports be exempted from Air Passenger Duty?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. Will there be differential rates of Air Passenger Duty within Scotland?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be Air Passenger Duty/taxation regime for private planes?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. Will all income tax levels in a separate Scotland remain the same as other parts of the United Kingdom?

A. The short answer to this question is "you are a moron". The longer answer is that it depends very much on which parties win the various Scottish general elections that will take place between now and infinity, and it also depends very much on which parties win the various UK general elections that will take place between now and infinity. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state, and I would also add at this point that the remainder of the UK is also unlikely to abolish democracy, although you never know I suppose.

Q. What happens if the Scottish Parliament has a different view on the line of succession for the Monarchy?

A. Jupiter explodes and millions die. Alternatively, see my answer to this question the last time it was asked (in almost word-for-word identical fashion) by Gordon Brown. And don't jump to conclusions - I'm sure not all of the 'real Scots' who spontaneously submitted these 507 questions are former Prime Ministers of the UK.

Now, having got through that little lot, I wonder if someone from the No campaign would be prepared to answer a question - just one solitary question - of my own.

If Scotland votes No and remains part of the United Kingdom, what will be the basic rate of income tax that decent, law-abiding, hard-working Scottish families have to pay in the year 2033?

Don't you DARE ask for our votes before giving us the number.

Questions to which the answer is 'if you don't stop asking these horrid questions, I'll shame this family by becoming an arsonist'

Gordon Brown may not have been the greatest ever PM, but it's now clear that was not the summit of his political career. No, the role that history has been preparing him for is to resurrect Labour Hame's legendary Questions To Which The Answer Is "Er..." feature, which has been so shamefully neglected by its creator Tom "Admin" Harris for over a year now. For the uninitiated, the feature consisted of a series of 'impossible' questions for Nationalists. They were 'impossible' for the following reasons -

1) Approximately 728 answers from Nationalists would be received for each question, of which approximately 701 would be deleted. They simply didn't exist.

2) The remaining 27 answers would be declared "non-answers".

3) When asked why they were non-answers, "Admin" would explain that a legitimate answer could only consist of a 'Yes' or a 'No', without qualification.

4) Subsequent legitimate answers consisting of an unqualified 'Yes' or 'No' would be greeted with the words : "Thankyou for attempting to answer this week's Question To Which The Answer Is "Er...". Unfortunately, your answer was incorrect."

5) The question would then be declared UNANSWERED.

What a lark. Sadly missed.

But now Big Gord has made up for lost time, with more than twenty absolute belters. I feel like a kid let loose in a sweet shop, but I really don't want to make myself ill, so for now I'll just restrict myself to my absolute favourite -

"What happens if the Scottish Parliament has a different view on the line of succession for the Monarchy?"

First of all, the fact that this genuinely appears to be one of the questions keeping Gordon awake at night says something rather profound about his sense of priorities. As Johann Lamont might put it : "a male heir to the throne is no substitute for having a job".

But as it seems to be so important to Gordon, let's try and put this matter in some kind of perspective for him. There are currently sixteen Commonwealth Realms, ie. countries which share our monarch as their Head of State. All of them could in theory take their own view on the line of succession, but all of them have decided that would be extremely silly, and have agreed that any change (most probably allowing a girl to take precedence over any younger brothers) would have to come about through consensus. Scottish independence would simply add a seventeenth Commonwealth Realm to that process.

Now my own question for any passing Labour activist, if they can find the time -

Given the theoretical but unlikely possibility that the parliaments of New Zealand, Jamaica or Papua New Guinea could take a different view on the line of succession for the monarchy, does this mean that the independence of those countries is unviable?

In your own time, chaps...

* * *

Suffering from Denis MacShane withdrawal symptoms? Get fast relief by trying out the Scot Goes Pop Denis MacShane word-search from last year.

Questions to which the answer is 'your question is important to us, please hold'

A double rollover day for any Labour people that might be passing by - I've got a couple of queries for their perusal this time...

Courtesy of Duncan Hothersall's slip of a few weeks ago, we now know that the "Admin" of Labour Hame and Tom Harris MP are, in fact, one and the same person. One being, two identities - it would be like the Holy Trinity if only there were three of them (after all, just like God, Tom is "right, and everyone else is wrong"). Is it therefore just a coincidence that Tom now only chooses to post his worthy, earnest pieces under his own name, and bashfully switches to "Admin" whenever he wants to make wild claims like...oooh, I don't know, that the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has "backed" Alex Salmond? I mean, Tom wouldn't have a slight concern that saying things like that under his own name might prove a tad incompatible with trying to mount a serious leadership bid which promises a new politics, would he?

And the second question - in the light of recent events, does Ahmadinejad's throwaway, unsolicited expression of support for Scottish independence look better or worse than Tony Blair's public embrace of Colonel Gaddafi, and the Deal in the Desert? After all, the obvious difference between the two is, to use George Foulkes' immortal turn of phrase, that Blair associated himself with a lunatic dictator deliberately.

Questions to which the answer is 'before I answer that question, can I just say how much I love what you've done with your hair'

The latest in Labour Hame's cutting-edge series of "questions for nationalists" is this :

Should the largest party at Holyrood/Westminster always have the right to form a government?

Answer : No. There is an arguable case that the largest party should always be permitted the first crack at forming a viable administration (and in practice that's how it invariably works anyway) but that's as far as it goes.

But what's interesting about this is that the question was, as ever, posed by Bomber Admin, aka Tom Harris MP. A man who we already know believes that the answer to his own question is "yes" - regardless of whether that largest party has 35% of the vote, 25% of the vote or even 10% of the vote. Regardless of whether that party is pushing a regressive right-wing agenda at a time when the public have just elected a parliament with a progressive majority. Regardless of whether his own party could lead that progressive majority, if only it proved itself mature enough to set aside its tribalism and work with other parties.

So my own question to Tom is this :

Is it really such a wizard idea to go out of your way to remind people that, because of your Neanderthal belief that a winner-takes-all result had to be artificially created from an election that had disobediently failed to produce a clear winner, and because of your pigheaded unwillingness to work with other parties under any circumstances at all, you spent several days last May actively campaigning for the current Tory-led government to take power, and therefore bear a share of the responsibility for the damage that government is causing?

Questions to which the answer is "what do you mean, 'Tom'? My name is ADMIN"

Day 5 of the Labour Hame Vigil, and still no hint of an explanation as to how the answer "no" could possibly have proved to be "incorrect" just a matter of hours after we were told "either 'yes' or 'no' is acceptable".  The wait continues. In the meantime, our old friend the admin is continuing his eager efforts to definitively "move on" from his embarrassment by posing yet another question -

Why are the SNP so reluctant to introduce even a modest measure of bus re-regulation?

This time I really will have to say 'pass', because bus regulation is not something I've ever given a lot of thought to, and I don't have any special insight into the SNP leadership's thinking on the matter. However, I'm quite sure other nationalists will have very full answers, which as usual will either be "not answers" or "incorrect". But, as ever, in posing the question, the admin has left himself and his comrades with a much trickier one to answer themselves -

If a modest measure of bus re-regulation is such an obviously sensible thing for a left-of-centre party to do, why didn't Labour do it during their rather long spell in government?

Just to make it even tougher for you, Admin, I must caution you that, while either a 'yes' or 'no' answer is acceptable, no qualifications will be permitted.

EXCLUSIVE : Labour Hame admin brands millions of Californians who don't want independence from the US "anti-Californian"

So the facts are these.  The Labour Hame admin makes clear that either a 'yes' or 'no' answer to his Californian question will be "acceptable".  I tell him my answer to his question is 'no'.  He then hurriedly revises his opinion of what constitutes an acceptable answer, telling me to try again in pursuit of the 'correct' answer.  I ask him to explain why he has just contradicted himself.  The response?

Silence.  Twenty-four hours of silence.

Well, this is deeply mysterious, but of course I know that it must be a mere oversight, and that it can't possibly be because he doesn't actually have any explanation to offer.  So I jog his memory with this playful tweet -

24 hours on, and still no reply to my question. Are we to infer that the answer is probably "Er..."?

This time, I do receive a 'response' of sorts, albeit one that shatters all my illusions about the admin's integrity -

Thank you for attempting to answer the latest Question to which the answer is "Er..." Sorry, but your answer was incorrect.

This, for the uninitiated, is known as a "non-answer in desperate pursuit of closure". But, alas, there can be no closure for our friend the admin, until he admits to us, and to his readers, and perhaps most importantly to himself a fact that is a simple matter of record - that one of his 'impossible questions to nationalists' has now been answered in full conformity with the specifications he set down for an "acceptable" answer. This was of course never supposed to happen, so we can all fully appreciate why it's a wee bit hard for him, but it has happened, and he needs to accept that reality in order to move on.

The only alternative is to pretend, as he has just done, that the answer 'no' to the questions "Should California secede from the Union, and are those Californians who wish to remain American guilty of being “anti-Californian”?" is in some way 'incorrect'. As Colin pointed out on an earlier thread, this by definition means he is saying that California should indeed secede from the US, and that tens of millions of Californians (basically all Californians) are "anti-Californian" for not favouring independence.

Now, I don't think you really do believe that, Admin. Let's be grown-up about this, eh?

If you're a nationalist and are considering assisting Labour Hame with one of their 'questions' in future, you need to read this...

If you haven't been following my recent exchange with the Labour Hame duty officer on Twitter, this might be a useful moment to recap.  The story begins on the 24th of July when the tartan-clad Website of the People posed the latest in its series of 'fiendishly difficult' questions for nationalists -

Should California secede from the Union, and are those Californians who wish to remain American guilty of being “anti-Californian”?

Several highly pertinent and well-argued responses from nationalists were swiftly received, for the most part noting that it is entirely a matter for the Californian people to decide, and that there are in any case a number of huge differences between California and Scotland (cultural, historical, constitutional) that render such a comparison meaningless. Curiously, though, on Sunday, the admin of Labour Hame claimed that the question was still - like all the others before it - 'UNANSWERED'. So I posed an obvious question of my own, both here and on Twitter, leading to a little exchange that has been going on for a couple of days...

Me : What would it actually take to get @LabourHame to acknowledge that one of their questions has been answered?

Labour Hame : How about when it's answered? Or is that too complicated for you?

Me : Not at all, that's grand. In that case, can you explain in what sense the seven answers I quoted were not in fact answers?

Labour Hame : Were any of them "yes" or "no"?

Me : Yes, my own was. As you'd know if you'd followed the link in the tweet you were replying to.

(I then once again directed him to a post that repeated my own answer to the question : "yes, if it wants to, but not if it doesn't" to the first part of the question, and "no" to the second part.)

Me : So I take it we can now formally certify that question as 'ANSWERED'? If not, what's your latest excuse?

Labour Hame : Sorry, that doesn't qualify. Either "yes" or "no" is acceptable - no qualifications. Try again.

(Unwittingly, this was a very helpful response, because for the first time ever he had set out his specifications for what constituted a valid answer. Those specifications may have been monumentally silly, but they were extremely easy to satisfy, and it would be impossible for him to pretend later on that he hadn't set them. Or so you'd think.)

Me : OK, I've tried again. See here...

(I then directed him to a fresh post stating that my answer to the first part of the question was 'no', on the grounds that the constitutional future of California was entirely a matter for the Californian people to decide, and that there was ample evidence that they have absolutely no interest in independence whatsoever - in stark contrast to the people of Scotland. My answer to the second part of the question remained 'no'.)

Me : So is the question 'ANSWERED' now?

Labour Hame : Okay, here's a clue: the correct answer is the same answer to "Should Scotland secede from the UK?" Try one more time.

Me : And I quote - "Either 'yes' or 'no' is acceptable". My answer was "no". Kindly explain why you've just contradicted yourself?

You won't be surprised to hear that my last question remains...how can I put this...UNANSWERED, in spite of the fact that there have been a couple of tweets from Labour Hame's duty officer on Twitter since I posted it. You can rest assured that I'll be pressing him on the matter if I hear nothing soon. Perhaps the answer is "Er..."?

Apart from the hilarity of this contradiction, the desperate switch from "either 'yes' or 'no' will do" to "there is only one 'correct' answer, and 'no' isn't it" marks the end point of a truly epic piece of circular logic. The initial answers from nationalists explaining why the comparison between Scotland and California didn't work were all irrelevant, because only a 'yes' or 'no' answer was required. But when a 'yes' or 'no' answer was forthcoming, that still wasn't valid, because Scotland and California are apparently identical entities, and if the answer is 'yes' for one, it must also be 'yes' for the other. OK, so perhaps you should have listened to the patient explanations that were so helpfully forthcoming about why Scotland and California are not, in fact, identical entities? Oh no, that'll never do, we just wanted a 'yes' or 'no' answer. And so it goes on into infinity.

I'd suggest this is a valuable lesson for any future question from the admin of Labour Hame - even if you answer it in precisely the way he claims he wants you to answer it, that still won't constitute an answer. And perhaps the next time we ask "why wasn't that an answer?", the response will be "because you're a nationalist, and I've just discovered a new law of physics that renders it impossible for nationalists to answer any question to my satisfaction".

The excuses are dwindling...

Another day brings the excitement of another reply from Labour Hame's duty officer on Twitter -

"Sorry, that doesn't qualify. Either "yes" or "no" is acceptable - no qualifications. Try again."

Oh dear, oh dear, you've walked into this one, sunshine. OK, I will try again.

The answer to the first part of the question, "should California secede from the US?" is -

NO.

(The reason is that, as I made clear in my previous answer, it is entirely a matter for the people of California to decide for themselves, and there is ample evidence that, in sharp contrast to Scotland, there is absolutely no public interest in independence.)

The answer to the second part of the question, "are Californians who want to remain American anti-Californian?", is -

NO.

I await with baited breath the reason why even one word "yes" or "no" answers with no qualifications still do not constitute proper answers.

Intake of breath - are we making progress?

A quick follow-up to the last post in which I challenged Labour Hame's duty officer on Twitter about why none of the seven answers to his question that I quoted actually constituted an answer. Thrillingly, I've now received a response...

"Were any of them "yes" or "no"?"

Well, as luck would have it, one of those seven answers was my own, and it was this -

"Yes, if it wants to, but not if it doesn't" to the first part of the question on whether California should secede from the US...

...and "No" to the second part on whether those Californians who want to remain American are anti-Californian.

So are we inching closer to a historic concession from the tartan-clad Website of the People? I'm about to send a reply on Twitter with a link to here - I'll keep you posted. Oooh, the suspense...

Is the answer to this question going to be "Er...", or "la, la, la, la, I'm not listening"?

Well, this is a novelty - because I tweeted the abbreviated title of my last post but one, ie. "What would it actually take to get @LabourHame to acknowledge that one of their questions has been answered?", I actually got a response from the horse's mouth -

"How about when it's answered? Or is that too complicated for you?"

Hmmm. This is not exactly dispelling the image of the admin of Labour Hame tied to a chair and having the word "URUGUAY!!!!!" screamed into his ear, but still failing to hear a thing. All the same, I took him at his word and asked the obvious follow-up question -

"Not at all, that's grand. In that case, can you explain in what sense the seven answers I quoted were not in fact answers?"

I await a response with baited breath. Although of course what I'm really wondering is whether the answer to my question is going to be "Er..." or "la, la, la, la, I'm not listening".

My money's on the latter, but then I'm a cynic.

Questions to which the answer is 'either stop asking me these questions or the kitten gets it'

Many thanks to Cynical Highlander on the previous thread for alerting me to yet another in Labour Hame's ground-breaking series of 'impossible' questions for nationalists...

"There is a general consensus among nationalists and Unionists alike that Scotland is more than capable of governing itself, if it so chose."

I believe that's known as an assertion to which the premise is...er, wrong. Although there's certainly such a consensus among nationalists, so maybe we could generously call it half-right at a pinch. In case anyone really is suffering from the delusion that most unionists accept that Scotland is able to stand on its own two feet, you might want to reacquaint yourself with a typical piece of comedy from David "Let's Make a Positive Case for the Union" Cameron. Oh, how we laughed.

Moving on...

"But just because you can do something, does that mean you should do it?"

Absolutely not. We could abolish Tuesdays, but we shouldn't. We could force asylum seekers to carry out a cull of badgers, but we shouldn't. We could make George Foulkes the next Secretary-General of the UN, but we shouldn't. The list of things that could be done, but that we nationalists don't want to do, is quite literally endless. So please set your minds at rest on that one, guys.

"California has one of the largest economies in the world. It has its own unique culture – as different to American culture in some other parts of the United States as the culture in some parts of Scotland are from some parts of England (and some parts of Scotland, for that matter).

And, like Scotland, California tends to vote (at least in national elections) rather differently from the rest of the country – consistently for the Democrat presidential nominee. It was once (albeit briefly) an independent republic and has been a member of the Union for half the time Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom."

For "albeit briefly", read 26 days. Yes, that's right, California was an independent republic from June 14th to July 9th, 1846. By contrast, the united and independent kingdom of Scotland was (with a few minor interruptions) in existence from the year 843 until 1707 - that's a grand total of 864 years. Still, 26 days...864 years...these are pretty similar numbers, right?

As for being a "member of the Union" for less time than Scotland has been part of the UK, it would be a touch difficult for that not to be the case, given that California wasn't even colonised until the late 18th Century - and even that was only a very half-hearted colonisation effort by the Spanish.

Anyway, this was all just a mere preamble to the main question, which this time is really two questions. Drumroll, please...

"Should California secede from the Union...?"

Answer : Yes, if it wants to. But not if it doesn't.

"...and are those Californians who wish to remain American guilty of being “anti-Californian”?"

Answer : No, although I think we can safely assume that anyone who ever dared to suggest that Californians have a right to self-determination on the subject would probably be considered "anti-American". It's rather easy to qualify as an anti-American, I've discovered - you might remember that it transpired I was one myself (a neat trick given that I'm a US citizen) after I suggested that massacring countless thousands of Japanese men, women and children with nuclear weapons in 1945 may not, on balance, have been the most humane act in history.

So, once again, fairly straightforward questions to answer, although as usual they give rise to a number of intriguing questions that our Labour friends might care to answer themselves. For example -

1) Was the person who devised this question Alex Gallagher, a friend of Alex Gallagher, or someone who has been reading a little too much Alex Gallagher?

2) Why do you seemingly consider it impermissible for Scots to believe in independence without first turning into Little Hitlers and telling Californians, Bavarians and citizens of Nizhny Novgorod Oblast that they have to change their constitutional status against their will?

3) If the status quo in California is such a splendid model for Scotland to emulate, could we please have Californian-style powers for the Scottish Parliament now? If not, why not?

I'll even be extra-generous this time and give it a full eight minutes before I declare these questions UNANSWERED.

Questions to which the answer is 'just before I answer that question, how about a game of hide-and-seek?'

The latest in Labour Hame's series of "impossible" questions for nationalists is this -

In what way would Scotland be better off in the euro, with interest rates set in Brussels rather than London?

Answer : We would have a direct vote in the decision-making process in a way that we don't have at the moment. And in case you're thinking of mentioning Danny Alexander at this point, don't make me laugh. A Scottish representative in the UK government would be a person chosen by Scotland, not by Nicholas William Peter Clegg.

But as ever, in posing this rather easy question, the admin of Labour Hame has drawn attention to a much more tricky question for his/her own comrades, if they can find the time in their busy schedules to answer. Given that "no issue more clearly illustrates the irrelevance of independence in the modern world than the question of national currency", I can't help but wonder this -

In what sense is the independence of Finland, a country with an almost identical population size to Scotland, an "irrelevance" now that they have joined the euro? Would they really not notice the difference if they gave up the ghost and became an autonomous province of Germany?

No rush, guys - in true Labour Hame style, I won't be declaring the question UNANSWERED for at least six minutes.

Questions to which the answer is 'look into my eyes, look into my eyes, don't look around the eyes, the eyes, the eyes, you're under...when you wake up you will under NO CIRCUMSTANCES remember you have just asked me a question'

A quick follow-up to the UNANSWERED question I asked of our Labour Hame friends the other day -

You recently claimed that Alex Salmond had no need to call a referendum in order to secure new powers for the Scottish Parliament, citing the Calman process as a precedent. Why, then, is Labour peer (and Labour Hame contributor) George Foulkes tabling an amendment to the Scotland Bill that insists the Calman proposals can only come into effect after an affirmative vote in a referendum?

In your own time, guys...

Questions to which the answer is 'this is a really bad line mate, we'll catch up another time, yeah?'

The latest in Labour Hame's thrilling series of "let's ask nationalists a question, delete most of the answers for no apparent reason but nevertheless leave a handful of highly compelling ones, and then pretend the question was UNANSWERED anyway" is this -

Why does Alex Salmond think he needs a referendum before he can negotiate more powers for Holyrood?

Answer : Because he has spent the last two months since the election doing his level best to negotiate more powers for the Scottish Parliament without a referendum, and the evidence of our own eyes confirms that it's like trying to get blood out of a stone. By contrast, a government that has a referendum mandate under its belt has tremendous moral authority in negotiations and is far more likely to succeed.

But as ever, what is more interesting about the question is what it unwittingly reveals about the inner contradictions in Labour's own thinking. Perhaps they can now answer the following -

If you think that an elected Scottish government has a mandate to negotiate more powers without a referendum and indeed should find it easy to succeed in doing so, why did the Labour government at Westminster refuse to enter into such direct negotiations with the SNP administration between 2007 and 2010?

I'm way ahead of you here, guys - the question will be UNANSWERED.

Questions to which the answer is 'no seriously mate, I've got a train to catch - GO AWAY'

Another gem from Labour Hame, this time from Richard Olszewski...

"Devolution was described, memorably, by John Smith as the “settled will of the Scottish people”. Well maybe, but it certainly hasn’t been the settled will of all the Scottish people.

Labour’s 1997 White Paper on devolution stated clearly that the aim of devolution was “a fair and just settlement for Scotland within the framework of the United Kingdom.” It also said that “Scotland will remain firmly part of the United Kingdom.”

These were the underlying principles on which devolution was based and put to the Scottish people in the referendum of 1997 – held just 133 days after Labour took power, nationalists please note. More than 74 per cent of the Scottish people voted for devolution on this basis. This could hardly have been a more emphatic expression of Scotland’s “settled will”.

But the nationalists never truly accepted that..."

Perhaps I could try to drag Richard back to something approximating to reality at this point. Let's start with this - if there had been a multi-option referendum on the constitution in 1997 with all the three main options (independence, devolution and the status quo) on the ballot paper, we all know that devolution would not have received the backing of anything like 74%. Quite possibly, it wouldn't even have made it to 50%. The opinion polls from the period suggest that an outcome along the following lines would have been fairly likely -

Devolution 45%
Independence 30%
Status Quo 25%

So when Richard says that self-government firmly within the United Kingdom hasn't been the settled will of "all" the Scottish people, that's something of an understatement. If John Smith really intended the phrase to be taken in that way, he must have known it was always a rhetorical sleight of hand - there was indisputably a settled will in favour of a Scottish Parliament of some kind, but a deep split on whether that parliament should be devolved or independent. The sleight of hand became considerably more brazen when Labour held a referendum that didn't allow supporters of the parliament to indicate whether they wanted it to be independent or not. So, as Richard knows perfectly well, the vast majority of independence supporters made the best of a bad job by voting Yes to the only Scottish Parliament that was on offer. Or to put it another way, virtually everyone who would have liked to vote "No to the United Kingdom" in fact voted Yes in the 1997 referendum, as the closest approximation of their views. By contrast, virtually everyone who voted No was emphatically in favour of Scotland remaining within the UK.

Curious, then, that Richard - just like Roy Hattersley and others before him - somehow feels he can claim the 74% Yes vote as a vote in favour of the United Kingdom. I can only assume that he believes an enormous chunk of the electorate were behaving entirely irrationally. That being the case, perhaps he could just clear up one little thing, if he has the time. Given that supporters of independence were (unwittingly or perversely) voting in favour of the United Kingdom by voting Yes in 1997, how exactly should they have gone about expressing their opposition to the United Kingdom? By staying at home? By spoiling their ballot paper? By voting No and thus preserving remote control rule from London?

How, Richard?

Questions to which the answer is 'gosh, is that the time, catch you later'

If anything, Labour Hame is proving even more fun than I anticipated. The latest post contains the first in a planned series of 'questions to nationalists' that are presumably intended to be unanswerable. If the opener is anything to go by, though, not only will they be easily answerable, they'll unwittingly reveal far more about the person asking the questions than those being challenged. Here it is, in all its glory...

The SNP mantra is that Scotland should control all its domestic affairs. Given that the EU already makes up to 50 per cent of all member states’ law, why don’t the SNP support withdrawal from the EU as well as withdrawal from the UK?

Answer : Because the SNP believe that the EU's competences are (with a few important exceptions) restricted to those areas that are most appropriately dealt with at supra-national level. The party also naturally believes that all areas that are most appropriately dealt with at nation-state level should be the province of the Scottish parliament and government, rather than Westminster.

But the implicit assumptions that underpin this question throw up important questions that Labour must answer. Any logic that holds that if some powers are to be ceded to an external authority, more should be, applies just as neatly to the UK as to Scotland. Why, then, do Labour say to the EU - this far and no farther? Why, in a nutshell, are they British nationalists on precisely the same basis that the SNP are Scottish nationalists? Why don't they instead follow the logic of the "internationalism" they pay lip-service to by calling for the absorption of Britain into a single European state? And if the SNP are narrow-minded "separatists" for thinking that all the powers the EU recognise as being the proper province of nation-states should be exercised by Edinburgh (rather than split between Edinburgh and Westminster), does that mean Labour are "British separatists" for believing that national-level powers should be exclusively exercised by the UK, rather than partially ceded to an external capital such as Paris or Amsterdam? I can only assume they must be.

The 'unanswerable' Labour Hame question has already received umpteen compelling responses in the comments section. I await just one compelling response to my own questions - but I'm not hugely optimistic. Once again, Labour are risibly and transparently trying to conflate support for the status quo of a British nation state (ie. British nationalism) with a principled and idealistic opposition to nationalism and "separatism". Best of luck with that one.