Re: 52% is not a decisive vote
A minimum 60% (or whatever) may be common elsewhere, and may also be sensible - it is certainty a point worth considering.
However, while some places, like Switzerland, I believe, hold referendums quite regularly, they are rare in the UK, and I believe that 50%+1 is typically what we have used here (does anyone have the rules for the 1974 referendum on the EEC to hand? or the Scottish independence referendum?)
Regardless, 50%+1 was the agreed basis for winning prior to the referendum.
Both leave and remain campaigns agreed that rule.
If I recall correctly (perhaps I don't, it was a while ago), the SNP voted against having the referendum at all, but other than that, no one disputed or disagreed with that rule prior to the vote.
If you have written proof of objections to the '50%+1' winning margin rule from before the campaign started, I would genuinely be interested to see them.
But it does seem to be the case that leave were happy with 50%+1 as the best chance they had to win, while remain (anticipating a win with ~55 to perhaps 60% of the vote) were not keen to set a 'super majority' requirement that they did not anticipate that they would achieve, so were just as happy to agree 50%+1.
I suspect the remain campaign realised how bad it would look to set a super-majority requirement, fail to meet it themselves, then claim victory by default of maintaining the status quo ante.
For a loser to argue after the event that they were not happy with the rules agreed for the competition, when they made no objection before hand (when they expected to win by the agreed rules) makes them look more like undemocratic sore losers than anything else.
And since the subject has been raised, should I assume that all the people that I predict will down vote me will be demanding that in any future Scottish independence referendum, a super majority of 60% or 67% should be required for independence?