It works as the opposite of "all" and follows the same grammar rules. All of the food is gone. None of the food is gone. All of the eggs are gone. None of the eggs are gone. That's also what I've always been taught in school, and it's what the grammar books say. I'm not actually even sure where one would get the idea that it's singular.
I don't know what all these people saying it's always singular are talking about.
Here are some pages about it: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-non2.htm http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.co...26513/9903.htm http://www.englishrules.com/writing/...-or-plural.php http://dictionary.reference.com/help...guage/g11.html
The first two are long explanations, the third one quotes a grammar book, and the last one is dictionary.com's explanation. I've yet to even find someone other than the posters here claim that it is always singular.
None of the people saying that it's always singular _are_ correct.