Miles Kington: We have the questions – you choose the answers

Today I am bringing back my ever-popular advice feature, Opposite Options, in which you pose the problems and we give you the answers. Two answers, in fact – a brace of answers for each problem.

The point being that one is diametrically opposed to the other. So that you get at least one solution to your problem that you can be happy with, while happily ignoring the other, which is just how British elections used to be run.

(In British elections the questions is always the same: "Who do you want to run the place?" And there were always two diametrically opposed solutions – either a bunch of brainless toffs who thought they were born to run the place or a bunch of over-brained idealists who thought they were born clever enough to run the place. Nowadays there are still just two, both bunches of middle-class chancers who have the same policies as the other side. What little choice there was has gone. No wonder people don't vote in general elections any more.)

Should we welcome the visit of the King of Saudi Arabia to British shores?

A. Yes.

B. No.

That seems a little terse. Could you enlarge on that, please?

A. Certainly.

B. Certainly not.

Keep going.

A. King Abdullah is a relic of a past age, when hereditary power was enough to give you sway over millions of hapless subjects. Oil money has also enabled him to inflict medieval cruelty as law, terror as justice, and armed might as right. Nepotism has became a corrupt way of life in his country, and yet he still can't even work out how to grow a moustache and beard that look real. Go home, Abdullah!

B. In an increasingly uniform age, King Abdullah is a wonderful reminder of story book days when monarchs really were hook-nosed and bearded and cruel. He is the stuff of The Arabian Nights. He is a living reproach to our own Royal Family, who haven't organised a proper public execution for centuries. He is living proof that feudalism can thrive and prosper in the 21st century. Bring it on, Abdullah!

Do speed cameras really reduce road accidents?

A. Oh, sure. Many surveys, organised by such authorities as the police, and speed partnerships, have proved this.

B. Quite the opposite. All surveys not organised by the police have proved that speed cameras actually cause accidents. Their presence causes drivers to get jittery, or to brake suddenly, or to drive abnormally slowly, thus initiating many incidents which would not happen otherwise.

C. What we really need is a system like that in Saudi Arabia, where speeding is subject to the removal of one hand, and subsequent offences by further removals. Figures for speeding offences in Saudi Arabia are the lowest in the civilised world, which shows that medieval punishment really works.

Hold on – there were three answers to that problem!

Yes, sorry – that third one was included as a paid insertion by the Saudi Ministry of Justice. We need the revenue, I am afraid.

Is Halloween really an American monstrosity which we should resist? Or an old British custom which we should cherish?

A. Hallowe'en is an old, familiar British institution, as dear and traditional to us as McDonald's, Coke and Starbucks.

B. Hallowe'en, like almost all great American institutions, is actually German. Think hamburgers. Think frankfurters. Think bagels. Think Volkswagens. Think Walpurgisnacht...

Stands Scotland where it did?

A. Yes. And facing backwards, as usual.

B. No. Scotland has a new dilemma which it never had before. Namely, should it press for independence, knowing that if it achieves it, it will have to have Sean Connery as its President for Life?

I see Gerald Ratner, the legendary jeweller, has had his own life story published. Will it be a bit of crap?

A. It will be worth its weight in gold.

B. It will be worth its weight in cupro-nickel.