Jeremy Paxman, quoted in the Sunday Herald from a radio interview -
"It's interesting, isn't it, that in this union of supposed equals only one side gets to vote on whether the union should continue or not."
Once upon a time, a woman decided to get a divorce. But her husband told her that she was part of a 'marriage of equals', and both of them had to have an equal say on whether it continued or not. She was a bit dubious about that novel interpretation of divorce law, and asked what would happen if they couldn't agree. Her husband reassured her : "Oh, my love, my sweet, my precious, if it's a tie, you shall of course have the casting vote." Thinking she couldn't really lose, she agreed to go through the motions of putting the matter to the vote - she voted in favour of divorce, her husband voted against. But before she could pack her bags, he frog-marched her to the scales in the corner of the room, and insisted they weigh themselves in turn. It turned out there had only been 11 stone's worth of votes for divorce, and a whopping 17 stone's worth of votes against. "Looks like it's 'till death us do part' after all, my love," said the husband. "You won't mind keeping the nuclear weapons on your side of the bed, will you? There's far more room over there, and much less danger to the biggest concentration of stomach fat."
* * *
A quick postscript to what I said recently about the phoney radicalism of the Lib Dems. I've just been refreshing my memory of an exchange I had a couple of years ago with Lib Dem activist "MrsB", who earnestly insisted that she was in favour of votes at 16 in principle, but couldn't possibly support them in practice for the referendum, because it was all far too difficult, and "against the law" anyway. You can read her logic in its full contorted glory HERE - if anything, it seems even funnier in retrospect. And given her track record, you'll be encouraged to hear that MrsB forecast a lower Yes vote than almost anyone else in the annual prediction competition.