Should gay and bisexual men be allowed to donate blood in Scotland, considering that every bag is tested? — @mrpaulaitken

THE fact that reasonable humans are even having to ask this question in 2016 is saddening. Across the UK, gay and bisexual men currently need to abstain from sexual intercourse for 12 months before they can give blood, whereas heterosexuals are subject to much less stringent restrictions. The SNP’s Rona Mackay should be commended for raising the issue of gay blood donation at Holyrood earlier this week. As a progressive nation striving for equality, addressing issues such as this will help us create a more inclusive and accepting culture.

I’m sure you’ll share my view that the current restrictions are demeaning to homosexuals, but there’s more to consider. With a shortage of donations all across Britain, the ill-effects of this idiotic and archaic blood ban will also be felt by the recipients. Call me crazy, but I’d be willing to bet that an ailing homophobe in need of a blood transfusion would quite happily accept blood taken from a homosexual person if it meant being able to live.

The prejudiced will invariably overlook their preconceptions when it suits them, and this really underpins the ultimate futility of prejudice.

As you have noted, every bag of donated blood is subject to testing ... so where’s the problem, right? It seems to me that misplaced and outdated stigma is all that is preventing Scottish – and indeed British – society from embracing equality with regards to blood donation.

Amazingly, historical fearmongering about HIV and AIDS appears to still be a factor in determining eligibility for blood donation. Other countries, such as Argentina, Italy and Mexico choose not to use sexual orientation as a factor in accepting or rejecting blood donations. It is not often the case that a serious problem can be solved in such a simple and effective way. Everyone should be allowed to give blood, regardless of sexuality. It’s about time we acknowledge that sex is not necessarily the enemy when it comes to blood donation.

Why do you like to be angry? — @HogelandBlake

I WOULDN’T say I necessarily like to be angry, but anger itself is a great motivator. If something upsets you and you feel driven to do something about it, I’d generally consider that to be a good thing.

As long as you’re being constructive and not a detriment to your cause, I don’t think there’s really a downside to being angry.

I mean, I like to consider myself a fixer. Broken things anger me. I can’t sit at a wobbly table without immediately trying to fix the leg. In my mind, that’s pretty much what the United Kingdom is: a large table with three strong legs, but the fourth is marked “England” and has been chewed to pieces by Tory termites.

The fixer in me looks at that rickety old UK table and thinks that it’d make more sense to use those sturdy legs to support individual tables in a European dining room, rather than waste them trying to prop up a big broken table in an American cellar. I’m angered by the problem, but it motivates me towards a positive solution. That’s pretty much my life philosophy, and I expect it always will be.

As much as escaping Westminster rule is my priority right now, there are lots of other things in life that make me angry. Racism, poverty, inequality, bigotry, sexism, corruption – most only exist because of the average person’s unwillingness to get angry. They might be mildly annoyed, but that only maintains the brokenness of the world, it doesn’t fix it.

You don’t fix something by simply maintaining its broken state. You’ve got to do something about it. People that say “that’s just the way things are” or “that’s how it is” never do anything to help improve anything. The angry people get the job done.

Would you vote SNP if Scotland got independence? — @DILL0NTAYL0R

CONTRARY to widespread beliefs, I am not, and never have been, a member of any political party.

My political doppelganger is, of course, a member of the SNP – and a powerful one at that. While I can understand why some may believe that I am also a member, it should be noted that I am a separate entity from Mr Salmond.

Should Scotland achieve independence in the next few years, I will be curious to see the SNP response. Unlike other parties, the SNP actually appear willing to work towards making an independent Scotland fair and prosperous. By contrast, unionist parties already seem to suggest that Scotland should know its place and stop bleating about independence.

On current evidence, I probably would vote for the SNP in an independent Scotland. However, it wouldn’t hurt other parties to offer positive alternatives to the SNP vision for an independent Scotland. Until they do, the SNP are unlikely to face a serious challenge. Unless I start my own party, of course...