Alex Massie

And so our watch is all but over. Who knows what comes tomorrow but at least and at last the final reckoning is upon us. It is choosing time and there's no escape. Few people would wish the campaign any longer. Many voters tired of it some time ago. Their minds were made-up and would not change and they just wanted to move on to the next story. Whatever it may be. But I can't agree with the people who fret that this has been a nasty and divisive and awful experience. It hasn't. I mean, of course it's been divisive and of course passions have been running high but that's because it matters. You can't have a non-divisive referendum. This is a good thing I think and I think this is an argument we've needed to have. If not now, when?

[audioplayer src="http://traffic.libsyn.com/spectator/TheViewFrom22_11_Sept_2014_v4.mp3" title="Fraser Nelson, Tom Holland and Leah McLaren discuss how we can still save the Union" startat=50] Listen [/audioplayer]Once upon a time, a long while ago, I lived in Dublin. It was a time when everything seemed possible and not just because I was younger then. The country was stirring too. When I arrived it was still the case that a visa to work in the United States was just about the most valuable possession any young Irishman or woman could own; within a fistful of years that was no longer the case. Ireland was changing. These were the years in which the Celtic Tiger was born. They were happy years of surprising possibility. Years later I lived in the United States and my perspective changed.

How do you kill an idea? That is the Unionist quandary this weekend. For a long time now the Better Together campaign has based its hostility to Scottish independence on the risks and uncertainties that, unavoidably, come with independence. This, they say, is what tests well with their focus groups. No-one gives a stuff about all that identity crap, they say, so there's no need to talk about it. Instead, hype the unknowns - of both the known and unknown variety - and bang on and on about all that risk and all that uncertainty. Which, like, is fine. Until the point it ceases to be fine. Until the point at which it stops working. Which, like, would be right about now. YouGov's previous poll was an Oh fuck moment for Unionists.

[audioplayer src="http://traffic.libsyn.com/spectator/TheViewFrom22_4_Sept_2014_v4.mp3" title="Isabel Hardman, Fraser Nelson and Hamish Macdonell discuss the referendum" startat=700] Listen [/audioplayer]Let us take a trip to America in 1976. The unelected incumbent president, Gerald Ford, is being challenged for the Republican party’s nomination by Ronald Reagan — and does not take it seriously. Sure, Reagan may have served as governor of California but, still, come on, is this Grand Old Party really going to choose a two-bit B-movie actor as its standard-bearer? And isn’t he the candidate of fruitcakes and loonies? Say what you will about Gerry Ford but you know where you stand with him. But not everyone sees it that way. Reagan is winning in places he shouldn’t have a chance.

I don't want to appear too immodest but, you know, I told you so. Back in February I wrote an article for this paper warning that Scotland's independence referendum would be a damn close run thing. That was true then and it remains true now. Today's YouGov poll reports that, once undecided voters have been removed from consideration, 47 percent of Scots intend to vote for independence while 53 percent will back the Unionist cause. If the odds remain against Alex Salmond it's also the case that the price on independence is shortening. Paddy Power's over/under calculation of a Yes vote now stands at 46.5 percent. A few weeks ago it was at 42.5 percent. It's a kind of quickening.

I like Douglas Carswell. He thinks for himself and has always, I think, added some welcome colour to parliament. But I don't understand his defection to UKIP at all. If nothing else it makes it more likely that Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister next May. Which in turn dramatically reduces the likelihood there will be an EU referendum in the next parliament. Which is the the matter with which Carswell is most concerned. He is leaving the Conservatives because he thinks - correctly - that David Cameron will eventually recommend that Britain remain a member of the European Union. Fine. But it is quixotic to leave a party that can actually deliver what you want and join one that can't. That is what Carswell has done.

Well that was a gubbing. No doubt about it. Alex Salmond won last night's debate against Alistair Darling just as thoroughly as he'd lost their first encounter. Sure, some Unionists tried to put a cheerful spin on it - "We'll take that" one senior Labour figure told me - but don't you believe any of it. Salmond, as predicted, was much better than he had been in the first debate. Darling, as predicted, was much worse. File this encounter in the drawer marked reversion to the mean. Darling had many problems last night but among the greatest was the fact he's not a Tory. Time and time again Salmond stuck him with the "in bed with the Tories" jibe and took great pleasure in seeing Darling squeal and wriggle. It's not fair! Well, tough.

PG Wodehouse, who was only the twentieth century's greatest English-language novelist, once remarked that there existed just two ways to write: "One is mine, making a sort of musical comedy without music and ignoring real life altogether; the other is going right deep down into life and not caring a damn." I feel something similar about theatre. I can - and do - enjoy a comedy or farce and, blimey, there's always room for laughter in this - or any other - world. But, in general, I prefer my theatre punishing and draining and liable to leave you exhausted and feeling like the marrow's been sucked from your bones. I don't go to the theatre to be entertained. I want to be appalled - and, yes, occasionally cheered - by humanity in all its many forms.

Way back in the olden days, Scottish Labour won the 1999 elections to the Scottish parliament, at least in part, on the back of the slogan Divorce is an Expensive Business. (The SNP's promise to raise income tax - the naffly named 'Penny for Scotland' - helped too. The Nationalists have never since risked making an overt case for higher taxes.) Anyway, these costs run both ways. That's made clear by new polling from England in which the extent of the oft-threatened, never-yet-delivered, English backlash to devolution is revealed. It makes depressing reading for Unionists. True, only 19% of those surveyed think the UK would be better off without the troublesome, whining, Jocks.

Cynics have long suspected that Britain's foreign policy is as independent as its nuclear deterrent. Cynics have a point. Perhaps, as some suggest, it's time to concede the game's a bogey and cease even pretending to pretend this remains a country of at least some modest importance and influence. Except, if we choose to, we do retain some influence, even some importance. Nevertheless, we certainly do not have an Iraq policy at present. Nor do we really have an ISIS policy. The Foreign Secretary is long on what we're not doing and very short on what we are. Of course this reflects past misadventures. Not just those pertaining to Iraq but others too, including last year's parliamentary determination to avoid having a Syria policy too. So, yes, Prudence runs foreign policy these days.

If, like me, you missed Andrew Neil's BBC programme exploring What the Hell Happens to the United Kingdom if Scotland Votes for Independence Next Month you might be interested to know that it remains available on the BBC iPlayer here. Prudently, dear reader, I liked it. It's a film best viewed as a companion piece to James Forsyth's Spectator cover story published last month. A call to arms to England - and Westminster in particular - to ponder the consequences and implications of Scottish independence. There is little sign that much thought has been devoted to these issues.

 Edinburgh When the histories of the Scottish independence debate are written, 13 February 2014 will be seen as a crucial date in the story. It was then that George Osborne suggested that no Westminster government, of any party, could countenance a currency union with an independent Scotland. Such an arrangement might be good for Scotland but it would make little sense for the rump United Kingdom. And with that observation, boom went much of the nationalists’ economic credibility. Osborne and his accomplice Alistair Darling might seem an improbable double act (though Osborne’s record in office bears a passing resemblance to Darling’s plans had Labour won) but together they might just have saved the Union.