I don't think it's possible to overstate the importance of the extraordinary sequence of polling results we've seen over the last 48 hours. To understand why, you have to cast your mind back a year or so to when Alistair Darling openly admitted that it wasn't sufficient for the No campaign to win - they had to win big and kill the issue off, otherwise there was a danger it would just keep coming back until independence finally happened. Well, they didn't win big, and they didn't kill the issue off, so David Cameron and his lackies in the Daily Mail and Daily Record fell back on Plan B - they started telling anyone who would listen that the No win represented "the settled will of the people of Scotland" (a desperately implausible interpretation given the wild fluctuations in public opinion witnessed over the closing weeks of the campaign) and that in spite of the narrowness of the result it couldn't be revisited for "a generation, perhaps a lifetime".
That of course was an absolutely grotesque parody of the democratic principle - imagine voting Tory and then being told that you can't change your mind about wanting a Tory government for the rest of your natural life. But people accept all sorts of nonsense as being self-evidently true due to groupthink, and there was at least a small danger that the Cammo/Record narrative might take root. No longer. The Ipsos-Mori finding that 58% of voters want a second independence referendum within just five years "regardless of circumstances" is the clearest possible signal (in fact it's beyond our wildest dreams) that Cameron's pronouncements on the limitations of Scotland's right to self-determination have been ignored as meaningless noise. There's no way back from this - if his argument failed to carry sufficient weight on the 19th of September, it'll carry even less weight in future. Enthusiasm for an early second referendum will doubtless wax and wane, and in reality it's unlikely that there'll be one as soon as the next five years (unless of course Britain leaves the EU), but the important thing is that the principle has now been firmly established that a repeat referendum within the foreseeable future is not illegitimate from the public's point of view. Perhaps things would be different if the No vote hadn't been tied to a panicky last minute "vow" that shows no sign of being honoured - but that's the position.
And the Ipsos-Mori poll was only part one of a double-whammy. Just a few hours later came a YouGov poll showing that if a second referendum was held now, Yes would win the day by 52% to 48%. The publication of the first post-referendum poll on independence was always going to be a critical moment - after a big election you would normally expect a honeymoon effect whereby voters on the winning side are emboldened to think they made the right choice, while some voters on the losing side temporarily drift away due to demoralisation. If this poll had indeed shown a bigger No lead than on polling day itself, we would have heard a great deal about how Yes voters had accepted the result and moved on. That would have relieved much of the pressure on London to keep the promise of extensive new powers for the Scottish Parliament within a very tight timescale. But as it is, it's rather hard to talk about Scotland's "settled will" with a straight face when the public have already changed their minds about independence within six weeks of the referendum taking place.
Lastly, I must just note with a degree of astonishment the Orwellian use of language from Labour's Jackie Baillie when confronted with the Ipsos-Mori poll -
"Having gone through one [referendum] just recently I do think it's a once in a generation thing. The people of Scotland spoke quite convincingly, 55% to 45%, saying they wanted to remain in the UK. That's a result I respect and I don't think we will be having a referendum any time soon."
So let me get this straight - in September, when the public say something that Jackie Baillie likes, their voice must be respected. But in October, when they say something that Jackie Baillie doesn't approve of (ie. we want another referendum within five years "regardless of circumstances"), their voice must be ignored, and Jackie Baillie's own views must hold sway instead. That's pretty much the size of it, yes?