The most derided mantra in current British politics is: "We're all in this together." This assertion has been enunciated by both David Cameron and George Osborne, in the context of "necessary austerity".

No-one takes them seriously. Despite what the leaders of the British state tell us, we reckon any notion of "togetherness" is spurious.

And yet this weasel "togetherness" is the very notion the Unionists have chosen to head up their campaign as we approach next year's independence referendum.

Better Together? The word together seems ill-judged, if not downright fraudulent, when we look at the current realities. I've tried hard, but I've seen precious little evidence of togetherness in the British state. The New Labour governments in which Alistair Darling, leader of Better Together, served did spend very generously on education, health and welfare, and yet despite this inequality increased in Britain between 1997 and 2010. In the three years since, that inequality has continued to get worse, not better. For at least a generation, and possibly much longer, inequality has been Britain's biggest social problem. This is not togetherness, nor is it to do with any kind of amelioration, which the word "better" implies.

The current political scene in England is notably lacking in togetherness. Many of the leading Unionist politicians in the British state appear to loathe each other. The Coalition Government did promise, at first, a new type of politics, even a kind of togetherness, but it is now falling apart. Many prominent LibDems would now clearly prefer to work with Labour rather than the Tories. And yet the Tories, even now, remain the predominant force in English politics, as they have been for generations. And many English Tories do not fear the Labour or LibDem parties as much as they fear Ukip.

Forget the first two letters: Ukip is not really a UK party. It is all about England, and a mean, petty little England at that.

But despite their fear and loathing of Ukip, and despite their increasingly deep internal divisions, the Tories, not Labour, remain a very strong force in English, as opposed to UK, politics. North of the Border they are of course a toxic brand. Indeed hatred of the Tories – which I think is a bit overdone in Scotland – is possibly the single most unifying element in Scottish politics. So where exactly do we find this Unionist version of togetherness?

In the Labour Party, perhaps. New Labour, in its early days, did just about manage to project a kind of progressive Unionism that was vaguely inclusive. Yet its key figure, Tony Blair, never understood Scotland. Alistair Darling wants Mr Blair to play a greater role in current British politics. I think that would be disastrous, though I would not mind him playing a prominent role in Better Together – for that would surely give a huge boost to the Yes campaign.

There are many stains in Mr Blair's record; the biggest is the Iraq war. Britain did not stand united behind this long, ill-judged war – once again there was scant "togetherness". Before Mr Blair delivered, in Glasgow, his important speech justifying the imminent war, he spent the night in Edinburgh, in the Caledonian Hotel. By his own account, as he prepared his address, he gazed across at Edinburgh rock and the castle on it, and drew inspiration from "these symbols of Scotland's ancient military might".

Heaven help us. Someone who so little understood Scotland – yet thought he did – was the leader of the British state for 10 long years.

Of course Unionist politicians will insist they can still sincerely come together when it comes to the task of preventing Scotland contending for its independence.

There is some honesty in this aspiration, yet it does not sustain serious analysis. What we are being told, in effect, is that it's OK for Unionist politicians to fight like the proverbial ferrets in a sack when they are south of the Border, but as soon as they cross into Scotland they can assume this strange quality of "togetherness".