I'm not having a go at Huw Edwards, who is one of the good guys, but it has to be said that the objection he raised to Nicola Sturgeon's "double majority" idea was the worst I've heard so far. For pity's sake, there have only been two UK-wide referendums in the whole of history (the Common Market in 1975 and AV in 2011), so when you point to a lack of precedent, you're not exactly harking back to the Magna Carta.
What precedent was followed when the 40% rule was cynically imposed in the 1979 devolution referendums? It hadn't been there in the 1975 European vote. What precedent is now being followed in excluding citizens of most EU countries, plus 16 and 17 year olds? They all had a vote in last year's referendum. Westminster has always been quite happy to make up the rules as it goes on.
Of course Nicola Sturgeon knows perfectly well that the double majority will be rejected, but that doesn't mean her logic for putting it forward can be faulted. She put the case more explicitly today than I've ever heard it before - her proposal is specifically designed to prevent the necessity for Scotland becoming independent as a direct result of an "Out" vote in the EU referendum. If unionists don't take her up on it, they only have themselves to blame for the potential consequences.