Do people still speak Scots or is it only for poseurs who put it on? — @fma_ad

The answer to this question – on the surface at least – is pretty simple: lots of people speak it, not so many tend to write it. The Scots tongue is remarkable for its ability to charm, confuse, amaze and offend – sometimes doing all of these things in a single sentence.

Some may attempt to dismiss the Scots language as a mere novelty, but this would be ignorant to hundreds of years of history in which it was the language of individuals such as John Barbour, Allan Ramsay and Robert Burns, among others. In more recent times, traces of Scots language can be seen in the works of Alisdair Gray and Tom Leonard.

Where music is concerned, you only have to listen to the likes of Michael Marra, Matt McGinn or Eddi Reader to appreciate the Scots language for its lyrical, musical and social qualities. In an age in which Received Pronunciation has led to the demise of regional accents on TV, it is perhaps important that we give consideration to the intonations and inflections that were once a large part of our identity.

Why are the SNP centralising things? Surely advocates for indy should also advocate decentralisation? Inconsistent logic! — @Green_Julline

UNFORTUNATELY, inconsistent logic is part and parcel of contemporary politics. I have great sympathy with your argument. That said, there is some logic to centralisation. For example, it would seem sensible to me that a doctor or policeman could log into their respective computer systems in any city in Scotland. Likewise, having similar rank structures and paygrades managed from a central administrative division would also seem rational. However, in terms of the day-to-day running of public services, extreme flexibility should be granted depending on the region. The public services in Edinburgh might be run very differently to the ones in Aberdeen.

The other factor here is that public services are frequently let down by poor oversight from inexperienced or idealistic politicians – the NHS being a prime example. While the health service should always be free at the point of use, there is no escaping the fact that the drugs and equipment used by the service are acquired from private companies. I’ve never felt entirely confident having individuals with zero business experience negotiating contracts with such entities. In my mind, it would make sense to have a free health service enshrined in an independent Scottish constitution, and then appoint some hardnosed individuals to run it as effectively as possible. I wouldn’t rule out a similar approach with the police and fire services, especially if a more regional style was adopted once we gain independence.

We need to reduce bloated and overpaid management, whilst hiring talented individuals to bring in the best software and equipment. A degree of centralisation could play a part in this, but the Government may risk putting the cart before the horse. As it stands, I believe the SNP are very keen to present the image of a united Scotland, and the process of centralisation likely has a lot to do with that. However, Scotland itself is infinitely diverse, and I believe that the government of an independent Scotland would be wise to consider how its infrastructure could better serve this diversity.

What happens to the SNP if there’s a second ‘No’ vote? — @Steedix

The SNP are in a somewhat precarious position at the moment. On the one hand they risk independence being perceived as a dangling carrot – something they can hold in front of their diehard fans to guarantee votes whilst never delivering. On the other hand, they risk pulling the indyref2 trigger too early and causing a second No vote, something that could ultimately destroy their party and all hope of an independent Scotland for decades to come.

There may have been a missed opportunity, following the first No vote, to temporarily change the party’s mission statement from independence to UK federalisation. This would have demonstrated the SNP’s willingness to accept the result of the referendum, whilst pushing as hard as they could for the “devo max” scenario that was removed from the initial ballot. I believe that as the guarantees of Better Together fell apart, the SNP could slowly have put indyref2 back on the table. However, in reality, indyref2 never really left the table, with SNP MSPs making constant references to such an event on social media since 2015. This has effectively placed the SNP in a complete “do or die” scenario.

More troublingly, all the SNP has as ammunition right now are the broken promises of Better Together and the democratic deficit of the European referendum. Presently, the polls do not show majority support for Scottish independence and nobody knows for certain if Brexit will be a failure or a success. The latter is of extreme importance, as it is something that we won’t know until Article 50 is triggered. Accordingly, I would consider 2020 a good year to pencil in indyref2, as by then we will have all the facts needed to determine our best move. However, because the SNP has stoked the fires of independence consistently since 2014, its fanboys may not have the patience. Indyref2 is looking increasingly like a high-risk gamble that the SNP are willing to take, but only time will tell if it provides the ultimate payoff.