Fraser Nelson

Over the last few years, Scots have had to get used to Nicola Sturgeon telling them what they think. When the SNP had its majority (one the voters stripped away in the recent Holyrood election) she was keen to present herself as the voice of the country: l’Ecosse, c’est moi. If the SNP wants X, then Scotland wants X. She’s at it again, saying that the UK has voted out of the European Union and Scotland has voted in – so the UK was voting ‘against the interests of the Scottish people’ and finally provided the provocation needed to launch a new referendum. In fact, two-in-five Scots – and even a third of SNP voters – supported Brexit.

I suspect a lot of people who voted out have mixed emotions this weekend, especially given how emotional the debate became. People on both sides did go a little bit mad. My Twitter feed reminded me of that Danny Boyle film 28 Days Later: you watch with horror as friend after friend (on either side of the debate) is infected with the Human Rage Virus. All of a sudden, it’s not possible to have friendly disagreements: you turn into The Enemy for them. And it’s not just a social media thing: there are still people, this weekend, afraid to tell their friends and family how they voted. Alex Massie’s piece warning England about referendum rage turned out to be prophetic. And I suspect that Cameron, himself, suffered a bit of referendum rage.

As Britain goes to the polls to vote on the EU Referendum, the odds on Brexit are plummeting – to a new low of 17 per cent at the time of writing. The Spectator’s zoomable live odds chart, below, shows the speed of the decline. At 9am this morning it was 23pc, at 10.45am it was 19pc and by 11.30am it was 17pc. An hour later, 15pc. The chart should appear below – but while our site is especially busy it may take a few moments to load: This chimes with the opinion of everyone I’ve spoken to, in both Leave and Remain camps: there’s a chance of Brexit, but not much of a chance. Today’s YouGov poll shows the country evenly balanced, and we also know Leave voters are more likely to turn out than Remain.

When it comes to making economics understandable, no one does it better that David Smith of the Sunday Times*. Today, he has written a emphatic endorsement of the case for the UK remaining in the EU. As a longstanding admirer of his work, a few points jumped out at me when reading it. Here they are. Britain’s economy is convalescing from the biggest financial shock in a century. A few years ago we were on the edge of the abyss. We live in the shadow of the crisis. One shock was careless: to impose another, self-inflicted one before we’re over it would be stupid. Yes, you can argue that now is not the best time.

The polls are tight, so George Osborne has a cunning plan. He’ll present a “Brexit budget” where he will spell out how he’ll punish voters if they vote to leave the European Union. He'll be forced to tear up his election pledge not to raise taxes: the voters will have provoked him, you see. Pushed him too far.  He has all kind of sums in mind, that they won't like one bit, starting with an extra 2p on the basic rate of income tax. Fuel duty will rise. The higher rate of income tax will go up 3p. Another 5 per cent on alcohol and fuel duties. Then £2 billion off pensions, and another £2 billion from public services. All told, £15 billion of tax rises: you can almost sense his nose growing longer as he reels off his list.

Campaigns only last for a few weeks, but politicians can be defined by what they say during those campaigns. Ed Miliband will never live down the #EdStone, Zac Goldsmith will always be stained by his murkier attacks on Sadiq Khan – and I suspect David Cameron will never manage to shake off the threat he made to pensioners today. At times, it can seem as if he’s got confused and has set out to attack his own reputation, rather than that of his opponents. Those who watched George Osborne grilled by Andrew Neil last week will know the issue: the Remain campaign has decided to pretend that pensioners will be worse off after Brexit.

The Leave campaign has been talking a lot about immigration, but just what kind of effect would Brexit have? How many fewer would come? “Up to us, that’s the point of this referendum” said Nigel Farage, in is interview with Andrew Neil. Let MPs debate the ideal figure in the Commons, he said. His implication: that post-Brexit Britain could pick a number for net migration, any number. Given that Britain’s net migration is about 330,000 a year, Andrew Neil asked Farage how far he sees it falling after Brexit. He didn’t have an answer. From the 1050s to the 1990s, it used to be 30,000 to 40,000 a year, he (wrongly) said. That was “acceptable” so “let’s get back to normality”.

To subscribe to The Spectator’s weekly podcast, for free, visit the iTunes store or click here for our RSS feed. Alternatively, you can follow us on SoundCloud. Naming the best columnist in Britain is like naming you’re the best Beatles song: it varies, depending on what kind of mood you’re in. But who would deny that Matthew Parris is in the top three? The quality of his writing is, itself, enough to put him into the premier league but that’s just part of the art. What sets Matthew apart is his sheer range, and his originality. You never know what he’ll be writing about, whether you’ll agree with him, or virulently disagree. Most columnists join arguments; Matthew Parris starts arguments.

To subscribe to The Spectator’s weekly podcast, for free, visit the iTunes store or click here for our RSS feed. Alternatively, you can follow us on SoundCloud. Naming the best columnist in Britain is like naming you’re the best Beatles song: it varies, depending on what kind of mood you’re in. But who would deny that Matthew Parris is in the top three? The quality of his writing is, itself, enough to put him into the premier league but that’s just part of the art. What sets Matthew apart is his sheer range, and his originality. You never know what he’ll be writing about, whether you’ll agree with him, or virulently disagree. Most columnists join arguments; Matthew Parris starts arguments.

With opinion polls showing dazzling range - from Leave being 4 points ahead to Remain 13 points ahead - it's worth looking at the betting markets. The below is a live chart, which will update every time you revisit this page. It updates several times throughout the day. At the time of writing, the graph underlines a basic point about referenda: no matter what the polls say, the status quo has a huge in-built advantage. Or, at least, a lot of people are betting that voters will stay with the status quo. Mind you, this time last year, the betting markets gave David Cameron a 10pc chance of winning a majority. Greater than the 0.

A while ago, I promised to write about my response to allegations by Andrew Neather that the government had covered up immigration. I got waylaid a bit, but in my Daily Telegraph column today I explain why I’m not convinced by it. To believe that mass immigration was a deliberate policy to screw up the Tories would imply that someone in power had a clue what was going on. No one did. It was a massive accident: the arrival of four million more people over 15 years. But here’s the thing: have the shops run out of food? Has M&S run out of underwear to sell? Has Ryanair started to ration flights? Has there been any rise in crime or anti-immigration sentiment? Have employers run out of vacancies? Not at all.

Boris Johnson is nodding along as he reads Karl Marx. To be more precise, he is standing in the Spectator boardroom reading a letter that Marx and Engels wrote to this magazine in 1850 complaining about being pursued by Prussian government spies in London. He then admires a picture of the youthful Taki chatting up Joan Collins at a New York nightclub in 1957. When he was editor of this magazine, he called it ‘the best job in London’. But now he says that being mayor of London was even better. Less fun, perhaps, but more fulfilling. After eight years at City Hall, he is turning his mind to what he will do next. As we sit down to lunch, he suggests that since he has so much more time on his hands, perhaps he could write the leading article or proofread some pages.

The Chancellor gave evidence to the Treasury select committee today, and he was challenged about The Spectator’s analysis of his systematic attempt to mislead over the cost of Brexit. A loss of £4,300 per household, he said: a figure that he fabricated using three tricks. He disguised an increase as a decrease: the Treasury study suggests that GDP would be a 29 per cent bigger in 2030 with Brexit and and 37 per cent bigger with no Brexit. So the choice is between two significant rises. By no stretch of the English language is this a ‘fall.’ Osborne conflated household income with the very different notion of GDP, so he could arrive at a higher (and scarier) figure.

Sir John Sawers, an ex-MI6 chief, insisted to Andrew Marr earlier that No10 did not put him up writing today’s article in the Sunday Times saying that Britain needs the EU to ensure its security. I can quite believe it. No10 abandoned this line of argument after the Belgian Airport atrocity, and the subsequent debate which exposed how EU-wide security does not work. We saw, then, that geographical proximity is terrifyingly unrelated to the quality of intelligence collaboration. The French and Belgians were unable to exchange information about terror suspects, in spite of having a common border and common language. If you rely on institutions that don’t work, you put lives at risk.

We should assume that today’s OECD report on Brexit was intended to frighten Britain into voting to remain in the EU. Ángel Gurría, its secretary-general, has tried to translate his figures into a blood-curdling soundbite about losing a month's salary by 2030 (something that could easily be remedied by a tax cut). Its finding is that the trade we'd apparently forfeit would make the UK economy 5pc smaller that it would otherwise be 2030, not quite so bad as the 6pc estimated by the Treasury. And by the OECD's maths, the "cost" to households is closer to £700 a year than George Osborne's made-up figure of £4,300 a year.

Barack Obama's decision to visit Britain during an election campaign was controversial enough. His writing an article against Brexit in the Daily Telegraph was more controversial still. But to stand in Downing Street and threaten his host country with being dumped 'at the back of the queue' for trade talks should it choose to leave the EU is, I think, too much. It’s precisely the comment that could backfire, and spark indignation. And make people ask: who on earth is Obama to come to Britain and speak to us in this way? I've just recorded a podcast about this with James Forsyth. Here it is:- It wasn’t what Obama said, as such. Even the EU doesn’t have a free trade deal with the US, and I doubt it will ever agree a proper one.