Mr Heliums

It opened just after the second Darling/Salmond debate. Better Together didn't want to have one after postal votes could be sent.

Apologies. Just looks very odd compared to other surveys.

That sounds bollocks to me

Well there may be regret next May if the Tories get back in - and they certainly could, as one thing about this debate I've noticed is just how unelectable Milliband is. Equally, if Labour gets back and continues austerity measures, it makes their position in Scotland untenable. But politics plays out in funny ways - further falls in funding to the Scottish Government resulting in cuts here might be portrayed as SNP mismanagement by the media. I wouldn't put anything past them. But hopefully our newspapers will take stock after the election of the strength of feeling about this issue and at least be more challenging of the Westminster parties.

oh - well that's pretty impressive then

I'd think there will be a dip in the next polls as those recent ones don't really take into account the rampant fear mongering over the last two days - bound to have had an effect. If we're holding on to 44-45% in the weekend polls, I'd take that frankly.

Presumably one obvious argument would be that they have benefitted hugely from the national health service and decent pensions, which Westminster is in the process of destroying for future generations.

It's a genuine worry for me that this panic and negativity will be effective enough. Short term at least. Long term - well, surely the Labour Party in Scotland is gone; who can trust Westminster or the BBC or the newspapers? It'll be a Phyrric victory, that's for sure. I'd pretty much given up on the political process until a few months ago, thinking that it didn't really matter as we'd still be governed by the same elite, with policies dictated by the same corporations. This referendum has given the opportunity for the people to speak and it's been so refreshing. But now I get the sense that we're being muzzled again.

They remove them and calculate percentages based on those who have decided

Hopefully tonight's poll will take the headlines from Labour's old new devolution plans

Yes I'm worried. When so much of the media is saying how bad it will be, it will certainly affect some waverers – certainly enough to make a difference in the outcome

Agreed that he could, but that wouldn't explain how anti the Sun and the Times have been up to now. If he had an agenda you'd have thought he'd have put it out there more than 12 days before the referendum.

Do you sense much of an in-built bias though? That is, would people say 'yes' just to get rid of you, or 'undecided' if they don't want an argument? I ask this because if a no came to my door, I wouldn't give them an indication of which way I was voting.

That's interesting - Kenny Farquharson of the Scotsman this morning: There's been some serious mismanagement of expectations by the Yes camp this week, if what I'm hearing is true. #indyref Which I took to indicate that there would be a drop in support (though not sure how Yes has been managing expectations either way, other than to suggest momentum is with Yes, but it's still the underdog).

Yes, think there's another YouGov for the Sunday Times.

I believe they balance it according to how respondents voted in previous elections.

Isn't there a margin of error of around 3% in these polls? That would mean that if 'real' yes opinion showed a steady rise from 42 per cent to 44 per cent and then 46 per cent in a series of polls, this could show up as 45 per cent, 44 per cent and 43 per cent in the polls. I'm not saying it is that way – it could also work against the Yes campaign for the same reason – but it's possible and is why a lot of people advise not taking polls too seriously unless the trend is continuing. Like others, I'd doubt the pollsters would provide misleading figures – the only area where they have been occasionally murky is in the way they frame the question, which is presumably provided by the organisation paying them to do the poll.

If they do offer concessions, they'll have to do it quickly. And it might already lead to more complaints. My dad - an OAP - has already paid £35 for a North Stand seat. I imagine he might not be chuffed* if others in the same stand get a significant reduction for buying their ticket later. * unless upper north is a significantly worse view? My only other idea would be for the clubs to take the hit and maybe offer a discount voucher on a home game for students/OAPs/kids paying full price in the North stand.

Aye, but Thompson's point is that (a) you shouldn't have to restrict ticket sales because groups of people and families all want to sit together at the final - if you do, then you'll sell fewer; (b) there should be enough seats to go around. So why not sell as many as you can? Perhaps he could have held some back for general sale, but the blame really rests with the SFA for their daft no concessions policy for the North/Main stand - there's just no reason for it.

Also reported the 10,000 Saints figure. I loved the reply from a Rangers fan who, quite without irony, labelled Saints fans pathetic 'glory hunters'.

Think United got 16,000 concessions and those are sold, so all £35 now. Not sure how many of Saints extra tickets will be concessions, but can't be that many more.

I should think United will take at least 28k surely? More exciting team than at the time of the Ross County final? I've always thought that Saints will take 15k. That's our absolute maximum fan reach - and all of them will want to come to this.

Saints reporting 10,500 sold :http://www.perthstjohnstonefc.co.uk/newsitemsdetail.php?param=2974

Has the club said this Steve?

Did we really take that many? I didn't get the sense that we had 12,000 there at the time.