bunkmedal

If you don't know how they work then it might be an idea to stop rubbishing the results. Being reasonable about it, it is just one poll so nobody can say it's proof the debate has caused a swing in support until other polls show the same trend. Polling is an inexact science so you randomly get swings at times without it meaning anything.

In fairness I think that's more interesting than the overall numbers going up or down. It perhaps shows how the interpretation of these debates is framed around media coverage - i.e. the immediate reaction wasn't so in favour of Darling, but because the coverage portrayed that picture people are now remembering it differently.

I don't think you can second guess it because people will react in different ways. It's a bit like the economy - if Scotland posts healthy economic figures then it might lead one person to think independence would be a better idea, but it might lead someone else to think we're doing well enough in the UK so why rock the boat.

Somewhat on the fence, but I'd lean towards no at this point. I think there are several issues that tend to get completely ignored in the campaign. The main one is the impact of UK decisions on an independent Scotland and the subsequent loss of representation that entails. I don't find the responses "the UK won't have any influence on us after independence" or "we don't have any influence as it is" convincing in that respect, so I genuinely think we do better when we have representation at both levels. Regulation in the service sector is an obvious example - if we want to maintain our single market in services in the UK we'll need to co-ordinate legislation with the rest of the UK (the EU has never been able to establish a single market for services so EU legislation isn't going to be an effective substitute). The one thing that could change my mind is the EU issue, but I don't honestly believe the UK will leave the EU in the end. If you look at the polls for what would happen after Cameron's "renegotiation of powers" nonsense then it swings the issue on its head and you have a 2 to 1 majority for staying in the EU. Even the latest YouGov poll on the subject was split 50-50 (without mention of renegotiation of powers) and there's usually a slide towards the status quo in a referendum.

Where is the international law which states that a territory can only have a right to self-determination if it's previously been defined as a "nation" beforehand? Don't get me wrong, I don't think Aberdeen should have a referendum on independence and I roll my eyes every time someone up here suggests that. It's usually a front for Weegie bashing more than a genuine sentiment, but there's no fundamental principle at stake here. Most of the internationally recognised states in the Caribbean and the Pacific never met the definition of a nation when they became states. They're states because of political expediency, not because of some democratic principle.

Well, if he lacks belief against Nadal then today won't have done any harm. I mean Djokovic had never beaten Nadal in a slam until Wimbledon this year, but by the time that came around he'd already won 4 Masters finals against Nadal in 2011 so his belief was sky high. It makes a big difference even if the lesser tournaments don't carry much weight in the rankings. Today certainly proves there's nothing wrong with his game in terms of how it matches up to Nadal. That last set was one of the most one-sided beatings I've ever seen a healthy Nadal take. It's on SkySports 3 again at 6.30 if anyone wants to watch it.

Fair point about the ranking, but that apart it is a training session. Long term these tournaments mean very little to the top players, it's all about Masters and Slams.

At worst it's 50-50 for Murray. If Nadal was back to his best then he'd be the favourite, but there's no indication that he's at that level yet. His record since returning from injury has been pretty poor - ten matches against top 10 opponents and he's lost nine of them.

The most unfair thing about it for me is that games won and lost can be determined to an extent by who serves first in a set. Tennis is based on service breaks and holds, so there is really little difference between the performance of a player who wins a set 6-3 with a single break of serve and one who wins a set 6-4. If Murray had won the coin toss against Verdasco and served first in the first set, he would have likely won it 6-3, instead of 6-4 and gone through. Circumstances like that shouldn't affect who goes through and who gets knocked out.

Taken the first set against Cilic. Looking good.