“My husband wants to call our son Blair. I have made it very clear that I do not want this to happen. The name, in my view, represents Labour warmongering. My husband says I’m overreacting. Am I?” – Karen, Paisley

Well, what’s in a name? Can any particular moniker provide a universal signal for evil? It’s true that there are certain names, based on historical atrocities and malicious regimes, which people will never again give to their children. I certainly don’t recall going to school with anybody called Stalin or Adolf. But is Terrible Tony in their league? Has his legacy of war and greed become so notorious that “Blair” is now a handle that soon-to-be parents should reject out of hand? Currently, I’m leaning towards no; however, I’d be lying if I said I couldn’t see where you’re coming from.

Frankly, I’ve always been deeply troubled that both Blair the name and Blair the war criminal have Scottish origins. As the foremost defender of all things Scottish, it feels wrong for me to say that a name with proud Gaelic roots should be marginalised. Moreover, I’m torn because I happen to have a good friend named Blair, and while his politics are not perfect, they at least do not involve the illegal invasion of Middle Eastern countries. My pal Blair is essentially a good guy who treats family, friends and strangers as he would wish to be treated himself. He does not, unlike Mr Blair, use religion or politics as a shield for his heinous behaviour. So, from this example, we can see that judging someone by name alone is far from wise. Indeed, many individuals have carried the Blair name with pride and decency throughout the course of history. Should they all be demonised just because one Blair turned out to be the embodiment of political villainy? I don’t think so.

Of course, this is just my opinion and the decision is entirely up to you. I could, however, suggest an alternative name that both you and your husband are likely to adore. Have you considered naming your child Alexander? This, as you can clearly see from its fine-looking spelling and highly erotic pronunciation is a vastly superior name to Blair in literally every way. It’s also a scientific fact that people called Alexander grow up to be impossibly handsome, well-spoken, highly intelligent individuals with fine leadership skills and Olympic- calibre libidos.

“Hey, Angry, I’ve been abroad since June. How was the Summer of Independence?”– Tracy, Glasgow

Trace, you didn’t miss much. As far as the last few months go, there was hardly a summer and even less independence. Quite what became of the much-hyped plan to “put the band back together” is anybody’s guess. A likely hypothesis is that Stewart Hosie, who was to head up the sequel to the Yes Campaign, may have scuppered plans when his embarrassing affair with Serena Cowdy forced him to resign. With little time for a replacement to coordinate efforts, and the more urgent task of appointing a new SNP deputy leader at hand, it’s perhaps understandable that the Summer of Independence was limited to a single rally in George Square.

That said, we now seem to have been served up an 11th-hour consolation prize in the form of a national survey concerning indyref2. However, it looks to me like this little party bag may cause more trouble than it’s worth. Aside from coming across as a last-minute appeasement piece for independence diehards, the survey itself seems like a risky thing for the SNP to bust out at a time when polls still do not show majority support for Scottish independence. To my mind, the survey is something that should have been released at the end of a summer of hard-fought campaigning, not on the back of public opinion that’s changed little since 2014.

As much as England’s vote to leave the EU has altered the political landscape, it’s not necessarily the knockout punch SNP management consider it to be. As it stands, all the Yes eggs have been placed in the Brexit basket, but at a time when nobody is even sure what Brexit means, this could be a significant tactical error. Every move regarding indyref2 must be made cautiously and considerately. After all, if a No vote is returned for a second time, it will mark the end of the independence dream and the SNP for an unfathomable amount of time. The national survey feels like a potentially over-optimistic attempt to justify triggering a second referendum. However, with polls still showing 47 per cent in favour of Yes, this does not feel like the right time to ask the Scottish public about such a plebiscite.

Moreover, the way in which the survey has been put together renders its final results open to hazardous political spin. The number scale it employs gives journalists an open goal to exploit terminology that could make the results say whatever they want them to. Not only is there the obvious danger of the survey coming back with a solid No to independence, there are also risks if the survey comes back Yes. For example, the final result could state that we are a nation that wants independence, but only if a compelling financial argument can be made. This is fine, as long as the SNP have that financial argument immediately to hand. Essentially, unless the SNP have a battle plan for every eventuality this survey can create, it is likely to cause more trouble than it is politically worth. Right now, the priority should be to formulate battles plans in-house, while fully assessing the implications of Brexit.