Even by his usual standards, Fraser Nelson has said something utterly outrageous today. He reveals that he's "delighted" the Tories have won an outright majority (there's a surprise), and notes that the SNP with their 56 seats are "technically" entitled to lots of places on select committees (including chairmanships), plus two questions per week at Prime Minister's Questions. But he then adds that they shouldn't actually get those things, and that status in the Commons should be determined by share of the vote rather than seats won.
Dear God. There is nothing "technical" about any of this, Fraser. The most basic principle of how democracy works in the Westminster system is that ONLY SEATS MATTER. If any other principle applied, we wouldn't have a Tory majority government at all - instead we'd have a hung parliament in which the Tories hold little more than one-third of the seats, in line with the rather pathetic 37% of the votes they received on Thursday. If that's what you prefer, by all means let's have it. But what you can't do is have it both ways - if you're prepared to justify absolute Tory rule on the basis of seats, not votes, then the SNP must also get exactly the degree of influence in the Commons that their haul of seats fully entitle them to.
On the subject of PMQs, the case for the SNP group leader having two questions per week is absolutely unanswerable - the Lib Dems were given that right after the 1997 election, in which they won 10 fewer seats than the SNP have now.
* * *
I don't entirely agree with RevStu's assessment that it was the interpretation of the opinion polls that was wrong in this campaign, rather than the polls themselves. The margin of error for any individual poll is 3%, but if the methodology is well-founded, different polls should be fluctuating around an average that is much more accurate than that. The average in the closing stages showed the Tories and Labour in a virtual dead heat, so there's no doubt whatever that we've just seen a polling disaster on the scale of 1992. In fact, the similarities to 1992 are absolutely uncanny - even the parliamentary majority the Tories ended up with is almost the same. The one difference is that the exit poll came out smelling of roses this time, although that's only because it was much closer to being accurate than the regular polls. In different circumstances, it might still have come in for criticism, because its central forecast was for a hung parliament rather than a Tory majority.
I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but the pollster that has taken the biggest hit is probably Ashcroft. A lot of people expected his two-question approach to constituency polls to be vindicated by a large number of Liberal Democrat holds in England, but the opposite happened. As it turns out, he would have been much closer to the truth in Lib Dem held seats if he had headlined the results of his first question (asking for general voting intentions) rather than the second (asking for voting intentions that take into account local factors). Needless to say, the notorious Lib Dem 'comfort polls' look even more fantastical than they did prior to Thursday.
Ashcroft fared better in Scotland, but even here he made some howlers - he showed the SNP well ahead in Dumfriesshire, and suggested that the Lib Dems were virtually tied for the lead in Berwickshire.
* * *
Dennis Smith asked on the previous thread for suggestions of who the new Secretary of State for Scotland will be, and wondered if there may not be one at all. I'll be amazed if it's not David Mundell, if only because Cameron will be eager to underline the fact that his government does still have a foothold in Scotland, albeit a tiny one. A blogpost that I wrote in February 2010, with the title 'The most lightweight Cabinet minister ever?', suddenly looks well ahead of its time.