The argument that independence would free Scotland from Tory rule is equally popular, though also absurd. Independence would be for life, indeed for beyond the lives of voters in the referendum, not just for the next five or ten years. To vote Yes on such short-term considerations would be ridiculous. Nevertheless many will do so. People cannot reasonably be expected to look far ahead, and there is little doubt that more will vote Yes if opinion polls suggest that the Conservatives are likely to win the general election in May next year. Conversely, the Union will be in less danger if it looks as if Labour will form the next British government. The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party has been becalmed in the doldrums for a long time. Paradoxically, independence might be in the Tory party's interest; yet its remaining supporters — some 400,000 of them — remain staunchly unionist. A considerable number of Labour voters will no less perversely choose independence.

It hasn't proved difficult for the leaders of the Better Together campaign to pick holes in the nationalists' case. It is proving much harder for them to put forward a positive case for the Union and to demonstrate just why we are indeed better together. This isn't surprising. Defending the status quo is always difficult, for it is natural for people to be more aware of its deficiencies than of its strengths and advantages. Grievances speak more loudly than contentment.

In truth almost nobody is defending things just as they are. There is widespread agreement that further constitutional reform is desirable. When Ruth Davidson was elected leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, she spoke of drawing "a line in the sand". Devolution had come so far and should go no farther. This position has been abandoned. All three unionist parties now propose that more powers be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Even so, their proposals remain vague and provisional. They cannot be otherwise, for, while independence may be a matter for the Scottish electorate alone to decide on, any future measures of devolution will require the agreement of the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom and will be dependent on an Act of the UK parliament in Westminster. Refusal to countenance further devolution would cost the unionists votes; proposals for such devolution may not win many, but should prevent support from seeping away.

Alistair Darling, the leader of the Better Together campaign, claims that "we are the ones who are being positive about the case for the United Kingdom. The nationalists are consistently negative and will consistently do anything to shoot down anyone who speaks out against them." He may be right, at least inasmuch as the nationalists' view of the UK is even more negative than the unionists' view of the prospects for an independent Scotland. Nevertheless it is the unionists who are criticised for negativity, even by some of their own supporters. The nationalists offer hope of a brighter future, while the unionists say "steady as she goes". This is sensible, but less than inspiring.

Meanwhile the campaign is becoming nastier. This may be in part on account of its excessive duration — and we still have four months to go. Much of the unpleasantness, but not all, is confined to the social media, and its vile anonymous fringes. Each side thinks the other worse. The truth is that strong and sometimes disgusting feelings are expressed, and menacing language used, on both sides. The SNP's deputy leader, Nicola Sturgeon, is said to have received death threats; a Labour MP, opposed to independence, has been told he will be "hung [sic], drawn and quartered". The owner of a travel company who emailed his 650 employees warning them that independence would be bad for their business, was met with calls to boycott his company. Other business people opposed to independence are prudently keeping their heads below the parapet.