The next item of business this afternoon is a statement by Michael Russell on an update from the Scottish Government on the proposed UK-EU withdrawal agreement and political declaration. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so anybody who wishes to ask a question, I would urge them to press their request to speak button as soon as possible. I call on the cabinet secretary. I am grateful for the opportunity at this important moment in the Brexit process to update the chamber, though, given the speed of current developments, I am not confident that I will be able to cover everything or that things will not have changed again before I sit down. However, at the outset, let me say that I make this statement with a heavy heart. Scotland voted to stay in the EU in June 2016 by 62 per cent to 38 per cent. To be dragged out of the EU against our will is democratically wrong and will be deeply resented by many in this country. Those of us who regard ourselves as Europeans and Scots and whose life experience has been embedded in that identity will feel particularly sad and sore. I no doubt there are others who will rejoice at what is taking place, and I respect their view. However, it is fair to note that the experience of Brexit and the demonstration of Tory incompetence over the last two years has not only resulted in a growing number of those who wish to remain in the EU but also in a diminution in those who are in any way persuaded by the empty bluster of the Conservative Party in Scotland on those matters. Today's polls tell that story. I believe that a future election would confirm it. However, that is a sad day nonetheless, a day in which the spin, rhetoric, the misuse of funds and the manipulation of electoral legislation have led to the worst and most damaging decision made by a UK Government in any of our lifetimes. A day in which the UK Government has attempted voluntarily and for its own selfish political purposes to actually lower the standard of living for all the citizens of Scotland and to distance itself from the global benefits of the world's largest free trade bloc. The Prime Minister last night described this proposed agreement as the best that could be obtained in the circumstances, but what a difference a day makes, particularly to circumstances. Her deal was the inevitable result of a series of self-imposed draconian red lines. I wish to turn her back on sensible co-operation across our continent and the loose talk and empty rhetoric of her cabinet who have shown contempt for evidence-based policymaking. The death of her deal over the past 24 hours, for it is now essentially dead, arises from the same insularity, the same wrong-headedness and the same arrogance. She has only herself to blame for the appalling circumstances that she has found herself in. Her circumstance is not just for her but for all of us on these islands. Presiding Officer, there has been much analysis of the deal already, despite the fact that the details are still not as clear as they should be, particularly with regard to the political declaration. Briefly, the deal, first of all, maintains a form of customs union for a period of time for all of these islands. That is, in itself, welcome, but because it is partial, it does not include any of the advantages of the single market and may be temporary, it is nowhere near good enough. Secondly, it makes a differentiation between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK in similar terms to those that we suggested for Scotland two years ago. Thirdly, it prepares the ground for a continuing betrayal of our fishing interests. Fourthly, it fails to guarantee key rights, human rights, environmental rights, employment rights that we need and which we should never give up. Finally, by its language and outcomes, it continues to ignore the current devolution of settlement and the democratic institutions in Scotland and Wales. Indeed, as the Prime Minister herself confirmed this morning, Scotland does not exist in her thinking about this deal, a fact that is very tellingly illustrated by the distinguished blogger and legal writer David Allen Greene, when he pointed out this morning on Twitter that the document that outlines the deal does refer to the British Antarctic territory but makes no mention at all of Scotland. Presiding Officer, in summary, this proposed deal does not meet the frequently stated Scottish Government requirement of single market and customs union membership for the whole of the UK, which is failing for Scotland. It does not make even a gesture towards recognising the vote of Scotland to remain. It does not tackle the considerable and grave problems that will be caused by Scotland coming out of the single market and customs union. It takes away the four freedoms, and in particular freedom of movement, which is essential for Scotland, and fails to address in any way the additional pressures on Scotland if its neighbour in Northern Ireland retains the advantages of single market and customs union involvement. It cannot therefore be supported by this Government or by the SNP. Presiding Officer, much of Scotland looks at the current state of the UK Government and Brexit with astonishment and resentment. Scotland is an outward-focused European nation. We voted to remain within the European Union. It is clear that we would do so again tomorrow if a similar referendum was held. The Scottish Government has been clear and remains clear that the best outcome for Scotland is to be within the EU. It is a big but that has cost the Scottish Government a great deal of effort. We have repeatedly tried to find a compromise position that would allow the UK Government and the Scottish Government to move forward, but to no avail. What is to be done? First of all, we should take some heart from a major development just this week when the leaders of all the opposition parties at Westminster, including Jeremy Corbyn and Vince Cable, took action to ensure that there will be the opportunity for other proposals to be put when the so-called meaningful vote is heard. There are many alternatives that might be considered, including the Scottish Government policy of remaining in the single market and customs union, as well as the EEA model, remaining in the EU, as the Prime Minister herself let slip—it is an option yesterday—so no one can argue that the choice is whatever the Prime Minister says it is. The choice will be what the people and their elected representatives say it should be. We will therefore, as a party in the House of Commons, continue to work in a constructive and common-sense way with other opposition parties to try and save us from the chaos of this Tory Brexit. I commit the Scottish Government to the same constructive working that we have tried to carry forward in this chamber with other parties during the Brexit period. Presiding Officer, not only is this a bad deal, it is being pursued in a bad way. The presentation of a totally false choice to try and bludgeon MPs and others to support the Prime Minister is one sign of that. Another is the actions of the UK Government, which have sought to restrict the powers of this Parliament and which have already imposed upon us legislation against our will. This is not just a bad deal because it will damage our future relationship with Europe, but because it also creates the pretext for a continued unconstitutional assault on the rights and privileges of the people of Scotland as exercised through this Parliament. It is an attempt to unsettle the will of the Scottish people, while eroding the rights of and imperiling the future prosperity of everyone who lives in this country. Presiding Officer, what is being offered is unacceptable, and so is what is not being offered. This deal provides for a degree of differentiation in Northern Ireland, which we fully support as essential to the future functioning of the Irish border and the protection of the Good Friday agreement. We want that to happen, and we will do everything that we can to help it to happen. Of course, although the deal provides for the whole of the UK to be within a customs union within the EU, thus rendering Liam Fox's job redundant at the stroke of the negotiator's pen, there will also be specific provisions, including single market alignment provision, which will only apply to Northern Ireland. That will see a better level of access to the European market for Northern Ireland compared to other parts of the UK. We rejoice for Northern Ireland that that has been achieved, but we cannot accept that it will be achieved only for Northern Ireland. The Scottish Government has been arguing since December 2016 that, if the UK leaves the single market, Scotland should remain. In January 2017, within weeks of the publication of Scotland's Place in Europe, I was told to my face by David Davis in his own office in the House of Commons that differentiation could not work in these islands and would not be proposed by the UK Government. But now Northern Ireland rightly is to receive that special status, yet we alone of the four nations will get nothing we voted for. England and Wales voted leave and they will leave, even though polls now show that the majority in Wales is against and much of England is moving that way. Northern Ireland will get a special deal. Northern Ireland, which was resoluted in its need for continued special treatment, which we understood and supported, has been given that special treatment. But Scotland, with the highest remain vote of any of the UK nations, is to be dragged out of the EU against our will, exposed to severe economic disadvantage and damage, have the powers of our Parliament diminished and yet receive nothing at all. Enough, Presiding Officer, is enough. At the long torturous process of engagement with the UK Government, we have been repeatedly assured of the importance of our views, but those assurances have turned out to be worthless and hollow. What, Presiding Officer, do we hear in this Parliament do next? First, we should go on working with others in Scotland, in the UK and across parties to ensure that there is a better deal than the false choice offered by the UK Government of this disastrous deal or no deal. The election and the people's vote remain within that mix. We will also ensure that this Scottish Parliament has the right to give its own view on this deal, and I confirm today that the Scottish Government will bring the deal, if agreed at the Brussels Summit on November 25, to this chamber for a vote before the vote takes place in the House of Commons. Of course, our motion will be amendable. That is how a proper Parliament should work. As I said at the beginning of this statement, Presiding Officer, this is a sad day for those of us who believe and still believe in the importance of European co-operation. Those of us who reject the demonising of migration, the misrepresentation of co-operation and the assertion of false claims regarding taking back control and the independence of the UK, those of us who still believe in a better future for our country, in other words. Of course, in one sense, we have been here before. The promises made from 2014, lead not leave, for example, have turned out to be worthless. We are not an equal partner and the events of this week have proved it beyond peradventure. I know that from each and every meeting of the JMC that I have attended on behalf of this Government. Far from leading the UK, the people of Scotland have been ignored and dismissed. Westminster has treated and goes on treating Scotland with contempt, but it does not have to be that way. It should not be that way. I would contend that it is the duty of every elected representative in this place to make sure that it is not allowed to be that way. We should understand that politicians are, if they are anything, people with a vision of a better future, motivated by a burning desire to help our fellow citizens to achieve it. Brexit is not a better future. It is a backward step into a false and imagined past. That is now crystal clear and every word of this deal proves it to be true. Things in Brexit, Presiding Officer for Scotland, can only get worse. So we must acknowledge that this deal is unacceptable to Scotland and her citizens, and we must then find a way to work together to ensure that our country is not failed by a disastrous Tory Brexit but unable to flourish by choosing a different way forward. Thank you. We will now move on to questions. Adam Tomkins will be followed by Neil Findlay. This is not a Government statement from a Serious Minister. It is a cocktail of contrived grievance from someone who, even two years on, has never accommodated himself to the democratic will of the British people that we leave the European Union. I voted remain, too, but the difference between Mike Russell and me is that I respect the result of referendums and he does not. Unlike some, I was not surprised by yesterday's events. I always thought that the Prime Minister would get a deal with Brussels. I have never advocated a no deal Brexit and I have never thought that that would be our fate. None of us knows whether yesterday's draft withdrawal agreement will survive intact. Getting a deal through a fractious House of Commons was always going to be more difficult than getting a deal with Brussels. That task has not been made any easier by the sad and unnecessary cabinet resignations that we have witnessed this morning. The deal is not perfect. It may or may not survive. With regard to key elements of it, I myself would, frankly, reserve my judgment. What I do support—and this is what the cabinet decided yesterday—is that it should now be subject to intense parliamentary and external scrutiny. I do not rush to judgment, neither to celebrate every clause of its 585 pages, nor to condemn it out of hand, as the minister just sought to do. I want to ask the minister about differentiated deals. He wants a deal so differentiated that Scotland would remain in the European Single Market and Customs Union even while the rest of Great Britain withdraws from both. Is it not the case that he wants that for the very reason that I am resolutely against it, namely that it would destroy the integrity of the United Kingdom, which Scotland voted to remain part of in 2014? Does the minister not accept that the draft withdrawal agreement that was published yesterday contemplates nothing of this sort? It is detailed, lengthy and complex provisions on Northern Ireland are miles away from the SNP's disastrous proposals for an altogether different sort of Brexit. To address the substance of the question, no, I do not agree. It is quite obvious that the reading of any of the documents indicates that there are huge similarities in terms of what is being proposed for Northern Ireland. A negotiation that led to an implementation of some of the recommendations of Scotland's Place in Europe, which was published in December 2016, would allow for a sensible compromise. I think that it is more likely that the precious union—I notice that the union has to have the word precious in front of it now for any Tory to talk about it—is more likely to be damaged in the long-term and in extremist by the type of dogmatic approach that the Prime Minister has taken and the completely out-of-touch approach that we have heard from Mr Tomkins. I believe that on those Tory benches, I know that there are people who know how ridiculous and appalling the situation is now. There are sensible people who would support a sensible way forward, who could not in any way support what they see happening at Westminster, where the Tory party is literally falling to pieces before our eyes. I do hope that perhaps some of those people might eventually step forward and say enough is enough, because that is essentially what I think they should do as representatives of the Scottish people, rather than as Conservatives. That will be their choice. I do not believe that the tone of Adam Tomkins' question does anything other than pray the fact that he may well be one of those people who knows how wrong this is. Neil Findlay, to be followed by Ross Greer. Presiding Officer, in the last 24 hours, we have entered the end game in the 40-year-long civil war in the Tory party over Europe. Two and a half years after Brexit, the Brexit vote was presented with a withdrawal agreement that fails to meet the tests that Labour set, and we will not support this bad deal. We have always put Scotland first in this, and this is not a deal that meets the Scotland's needs or the needs of other nations and regions of the UK. It fails to respect devolution. It does not meet our demand for a permanent customs union arrangement. It fails to set out the collaborative and cooperative future with the EU that we want to see. It fails to provide equal access to the single market or guarantee that it will not fall behind in workers' rights, consumer protection and protection of our environment. That cannot be a choice between a bad deal and a disastrous no deal. The cabinet secretary said that he will bring forward a motion to this Parliament. Will he work with me and others to ensure that that motion gathers the widest possible parliamentary support? He spoke off a differentiated border and customs arrangement for Scotland, and the First Minister has spoken about that, too. Can I ask what work has been done in this, how will it work, what the impact would be and will he publish the Government's plans today? In relation to Northern Ireland, it is a land border with the EU. We don't. It is a history of conflict. It is the Good Friday agreement and the will of the people holding the peace. The circumstances there are completely different to Scotland, and nothing must undermine that peace. Does the cabinet secretary believe that creating a hard border between Scotland and our biggest market, the rest of the UK, would be in Scotland's interest? Finally, will he do now what the First Minister failed to do at question time? That is called for an immediate general election so that we can rid the country of the shambolic and arrogant Tory Government. The First Minister was very clear about that. Quite clearly, there are a range of options on the table, and the general election is one of those options. If a general election takes place, I will be quite happy to campaign alongside my SNP colleagues who will undoubtedly be taking seats from both of those parties. However, let's see if we can address some of those. First of all, on the question of publishing material, we published Scotland's Place in Europe in December 2016. It contains all that information and, indeed, we have gone on publishing other volumes called Scotland's Place in Europe, almost like a serial publication from the 19th century. I am happy to go on doing so. That information is there, and it is in the public domain. To move then in terms to Northern Ireland, of course I entirely agree that peace is the absolute most important thing. I indicated my statement, of course I did, but there are similarities in what could be done in terms of differentiation, which would benefit both sides. That is what we are talking about and that is what we want to put in place. It does not include a hard border. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Northern Ireland situation is not to have a hard border. Now, let's go to what we could actually bring us together on. I am happy to come on myself to work with Mr Finlay on the details of emotion to bring to this chamber and to ensure that it has the widest possible support. I say that to everybody in this chamber. Mr Finlay, I am sure that the Greens want to do so, I am sure that the Liberals want to do so, and there is no joy in heaven greater than that of a sinner that repented if the Tories wanted to take part in that to produce an effective motion that showed that this Parliament would speak for Scotland against Brexit than I would welcome to. However, as Mr Finlay has indicated, I will not get my hopes up for that happening. As far as I am concerned, we will take this forward as the parties in the House of Commons are. I pointed out that Jeremy Corbyn and Vince Cable have signed with Ian Blackford, with Plyde and with the Greens a letter about what they hope to take place in the meaningful vote. I continue to work very closely with my colleague Mark Drakeford on those issues, and both of us were at the JMC on Tuesday, where, as usual, we received no illumination of any description. Ross Greer has been followed by Tavish Scott. Welcome to the minister's statement today, and the Greens will, of course, be more than happy to work with the Labour Party and the Scottish Government to try to present as close as possible to a united voice from this Parliament on behalf of Scotland. I understand that the Scottish Government's previous reticence is to give momentum to a no-deal scenario by publishing material on its preparations for it, but we are well past that point now. No deal is a very real threat now that the deal on the table, as the minister has said, is almost certainly set to fall in the House of Commons. We still believe that there are other options. We look forward to a ruling from the ECG later this month, early next month and whether article 50 can be revoked. However, the Westminster health secretary apparently told the cabinet last night that he could not guarantee that people would not die as a result of a no deal, giving the near inevitability of medicine and other shortages. Given the serious amount of concerns and the clear impact on areas of devolved responsibility, will the Scottish Government now publish in full its no-deal preparatory work? Thank you for that question. I actually think that the events of the last 24 hours have actually made no deal much less likely than it was. I think that it has concentrated minds. I think that some of the work of people like the health secretary in England has been designed to egg this up, and in so doing have actually made it clear to almost everybody that it shouldn't happen. However, we are not going to let up on our own preparations—a very substantial amount of my time over the last period has been spent on no-deal issues. I expect to be in a position to come to this chamber with more information on that before Christmas, and I make an undertaking to do so. I hope that that will include publication of some information. Ross Greer makes an important point. We have to have a very careful judgment between whether we are egging that on and encouraging that and making people think that it will happen or whether we are providing reassurance. I will always consider that to be the most important judgment, but I give an undertaking that we will say more about this. Tavish Scott, to be followed by Bruce Crawford. The deputy political editor of the BBC has just tweeted that, Tory Minister tells me that if Brexiteers vote down the deal, he and others will openly campaign for a second referendum and to stay in the EU. Given the changing position of public opinion that Mr Russell mentioned in his remarks both in Wales and in parts of England, London has voted to remain. Will he get behind that cross-party growing momentum for a people's vote and endorse it here today? I have to say that I am behind it, remain behind it and will be behind it, because that is the position that the SNP has taken. Clearly, Tavish Scott and his colleague cannot take yes for an answer, because they just do not want to take yes for an answer. We support the people's vote campaign. That is clear. That is on the record. I hope in those circumstances that, if that is one of the options that comes through this process and comes through the meaningful vote option, they will find that the SNP will support it. You may not wish us to do so, because clearly you are much happier. The Liberal Democrats are much happier constantly asking the question, but I will go on giving the same answer. Yes, we are behind it, we will go on being behind it. It may well happen. The considerable interest in the subject, as members can imagine, at least 10 members wish to get in. I urge everyone to be succinct. However, having said that, I am prepared to let the statement run on a little bit, which will have an impact on the afternoon's debate. Bruce Crawford, to be followed by Donald Cameron. Thank you, Presiding Officer. A very short quote. There is undoubtedly a need for the devolved Administrations to work with the UK Government to ensure that we get a deal that reflects the needs of us all. Chiefly, among us is our continued access to the single market. Protecting our trade with the EU will boost our economy, sustain jobs and help to fund vital public services. Not the words of the First Minister, not the words of the Cabinet Secretary, not even my words, but the words of the Tory leader Ruth Davidson. Cabinet Secretary, I am the first to recognise that the circumstances of Northern Ireland are different to those in Scotland. However, is it still not an entirely legitimate question to ask? If the single market access is good enough for Northern Ireland, why is it not good enough for Scotland? And do you agree with Ruth Davidson's comments? And what common cause can you have with these pragmatic and sensible Tories that exist in this chamber, as well as other parties, to fight for Scotland's interests? Cabinet Secretary. My friend Mr Crawford makes a very good and sound point. Of course, we could extend it backwards in time to the role of Margaret Thatcher as essentially the key midwife for the single market coming into being and her enthusiastic view of the single market. The single market has developed and changed and it has brought in more acceptable issues in terms of how employment and other conditions. But it is something that was and should be valued across this chamber. What we have actually seen is that it is a very strange set of circumstances where people who supported it and who knew that leaving the single market would be immensely damaging have been persuaded by the wind blowing from their party in Westminster to do a complete vote fast and to pretend that, in many ways, it does not matter. That is simply not true. It matters enormously. Particularly, as I indicated in my statement, in freedom of movement. It is vital for the health of the Scottish economy and for rural Scotland most of all, and I shall be speaking tomorrow at the Scottish rural parliaments in Roir and making that point. I keep hoping that sense will prevail in the Scottish Tory party, forlorn hope perhaps, and that they will recognise that the stance that they are taking may help for a very brief period of time in Theresa May, but it will damage the people that they are meant to represent. Donald Cameron, to be followed by Alex Neil. Thank you. Whereas the Scottish Conservatives publicly sought assurances from the Prime Minister yesterday that the draft deal protects Scotland's fishing interests, isn't it the case that the Scottish Government's position is to take Scotland straight back into the common fisheries policy and, accordingly, any betrayal of our fishing interests lies at the door of the SNP? I like and respect Donald Cameron, and that question is not worthy of him, because the reality of the situation is this. The Conservative party has been enthusiastic supporters and implementers of the common fisheries policy since it started. The Scottish National Party has argued and will continue to argue for, and I think that I used the words of the manifesto, to scrap or radically reform the common fisheries policy. There has been a cruel hoax perpetrated on the fishing community in Scotland by the Scottish Conservatives. Yesterday's part of that was a piece of theatre to which they knew the answer, even though that answer was false, because there is no doubt, reading the documents, that the long, years-long betrayal of the Scottish fishing industry will continue. I hope that Mr Cameron, on reflection, will realise that what he has said adds, again, to that betrayal. Alex Neil is being followed by Clare Baker. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. Can I, as someone who voted for Brexit, agree with the Cabinet Secretary that the draft withdrawal agreement is totally unacceptable? It is neither fish nor foul, it is not in the EU and it is not out of the EU. There is much wrong with the draft agreement, but none more so, despite what Donald Cameron says, than another Tory sell-out in relation to the future of our fishing industry and our fishing communities, putting at risk again one of the most important industries in rural Scotland. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary when you actually read the document that was published last night, which obviously Donald Cameron has not? It is very clear, not only is there no deal on fishing— Question, Mr Neil, please. There is no guarantee that the fishing industry will not be in the common fisheries policy. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that if the Scottish Tories fail to deliver, every one of their MPs should have a moral responsibility to resign their seats if they do it in the Scottish fishing industry for the first time being Ted Teith, the second time being Theresa May? I want to make two quick points about fishing. The first one is that I agree that, of course, the 13 Scottish Conservatives should resign, but they are taking their lead, no doubt, from David Mundell, who clearly does not want to resign no matter what he promises. I cannot do anything other than say that that would be the honourable thing for them to do, but let me just make a key point about fishing. I represent a number of fishing communities in Argyll and Bute. They are very different from the interests of fishing that are claimed elsewhere. The worry in Argyll and Bute, among many fishermen, is access to markets. There is access to markets for shellfish, for example. The proposals that Theresa May has on the table do not provide frictionless trade. They create circumstances in which market access will become ever more difficult. Those are people whose livelihoods are directly threatened by what the Prime Minister is proposing. Those are fishermen and fisherwomen in Scotland who will look at the deal and realise that they are getting nothing, zilch, nada from the Scottish Conservatives or the Conservatives south of the border. Claire Baker, to be followed by June McAlpine. Thank you. The Government's focus today is on arguing for a special deal, but the reality is following the developments that we have seen throughout today, the deal that we are deliberating over is on the verge of collapse. The deal before us does set out a differentiation for Northern Ireland. Is the cabinet secretary confident that all of the proposals in Scotland's place in Europe, on an open border with England, who, unlike Ireland, would be outside of the EU, are still workable, given the detail of the draft proposal for Northern Ireland? I am absolutely convinced that you can find, and it would be easy to find, a workable solution to those matters. Those are matters that can be resolved, and differentiation is vitally important in terms of access, particularly to Labour. The member will know, for the region that she represents, that there are many industries and many sectors that are already experiencing shortage of labour, and that can only get worse. In addition, there are substantial difficulties in terms of wage inflation because workers cannot be found. In those circumstances, getting the right deal for Scotland would be not to leave the EU, but if a deal can be found in those circumstances, it can be found to work for Northern Ireland and for Scotland. Joan McAlpine, to be followed by Mark MacDonald. Thank you very much. In this deal, Northern Ireland, which voted remain, is guaranteed a special deal to stay close to the EU. Where does the cabinet secretary see this leaving Scotland, which, despite having had the highest remain vote of any UK nation, is being left high and dry with our democratic voice ignored? I would simply go back to the account of the conversation that I gave with David Davis. There was a root and branch refusal to accept differentiation at the beginning of this process. When that became essential for Northern Ireland, there was a view from the Prime Minister, I suspect, because she controls everything or tries to control everything, there was a view from the Prime Minister that no ground should be given to Scotland. We know, in terms of the briefings that we now understood took place to say to the EU that nothing must be drafted that would assist Scotland, that there was essentially a negative, dogged in the major attitude from the Prime Minister that has affected this. We continue to argue that another way is possible and we will go on arguing that. Mark McDonald is to be followed by Liam Kerr. The draft agreement appears to offer no guarantees on the future ability of the UK to be involved in European reference networks, which allow knowledge and expertise about rare diseases and work on treatment and cures to be shared across Europe. I appreciate the many issues that the cabinet secretary is wrestling with, but will he offer his support for the genetic alliance campaign to protect involvement in ERNs and undertake to raise the matter with the UK Government, given that, for many people, that could literally be a matter of life or death? The member makes a very good point. It is one of the issues that causes enormous concern and, of course, there are many of them. If the member would like to write to me or come and see me and give me that information perhaps with the organisation, I have seen the outline information that I will undertake to take it forward. On a general point, there are whole areas in that, although issues might be referred to in passing, nothing is tied down. The process of tying down the material and information will take years. The real problem that we now face, if anything like the Prime Minister's deal were to go forward, is that we would then be faced with an implementation period that would have to be renewed. At any time during that, we could see a collapse in talks, but we will also be in that limbo for a long period of time. None of that is necessary if we took a single-market and customs union approach. Liam Kerr, to be followed by Ruth Maguire. In December 2016, Michael Russell stated that membership of the single market is, and I quote, clearly not going to happen. What's changed? The member would have to remind me of the exact context of that. Unlike Mr Kerr, I don't go and scrape through my previous speeches trying to quote me out of context. Membership of the single market and customs union is essential. It is absolutely essential. We have said so from the beginning and we have had the backing of the Scottish Conservatives. We have had the backing of Ruth Davidson. We have had the backing, even, of Adam Tomkins in that matter. In all those circumstances, I say today, as I have said last year and will continue to say, we need to be in the single market. That is it. Ruth Maguire, to be followed by Pauline McNeill. What has been announced is an agreement on the UK's withdrawal from the EU. The long-term relationship is yet to be agreed. Indeed, the political declaration detailing this is only seven pages long and provides no firm commitments to the nature of the future economic relationship. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the risk of a blind Brexit is now a very real one? It is true that the blindfold aspect of this, which has been much discussed in recent months, has not diminished. There is an expectation that we might see more of the political declaration next week. Of course, the political declaration is not legally binding. The exit agreement would be legally binding. The political declaration is aspirational and then you have the immensely detailed negotiations that have to build upon that to get the final relationship. That will take a great deal of time. I think that we will know more when we see the full political declaration. However, there will be aspects of this if it were to go ahead in the way that Theresa May wants it to go ahead. That is highly unlikely, given where the House of Commons has shown itself to be today. However, if it were to go ahead, there would be whole areas in which we knew absolutely nothing. We would have no purchase and no heft in negotiations. Pauline McNeill, to be followed by Annabelle Ewing. Given the many references in the statement to special visas for Northern Ireland, does the cabinet secretary agree that the focus should be the permanent membership of the customs union, because that protects the interests of all four nations and protects the peace agreement in Northern Ireland? Importantly, it allows Scotland and the interests of all the other nations, including Northern Ireland's, economies and interests to be equally protected. I agree with the member that an agreement from the UK to stay permanently in the customs union would be a big step forward. It would not, in my view, give us enough in terms of the single market issues, but a single market can build upon a customs union. If there was an intention to do so, that would also be a step forward. Of course, we do not have anything like that at the present moment. I am preparing myself for all sorts of eventualities, but one of them has to be to say that, if that were to happen and that Northern Ireland were in that position, Scotland would have to be in the same position as Northern Ireland in order—for two reasons. One is that we would find it necessary, but the second reason is that it would be very difficult for us to compete with Northern Ireland. For example, in terms of European investment, in terms of European workers, we would simply not have a level playing field. However, I agree with her that the best solution of all is for the whole of these islands to stay in the EU. That would be a much, much more sensible decision. Bending that, the decision that you move from that, you need to move as little as possible from that, and staying permanently in the customs union is not as bad as some of the things that Theresa May is proposing. No mention of Scotland in the 585-page Brexit document. No briefing for the Scottish Government. What happened to the 2014 treaty leaders don't leave us? Cabinet Secretary, is it not just the case that the so-called respect agenda simply does not exist? The member is correct. I made that point in my statement. I think that it is a sham, a complete sham now. I noticed when she was asking a question that there were mutterings from the Scottish Conservative front bench. They don't want to confront the reality of that. The arguments that they put forward in 2014 turn out to be completely and utterly untrue. They were, in other words, a lie. I urge caution about using such language in this chamber. That concludes our statement on the UK-EU withdrawal. We are going to move on to our next item of business, which is a debate on motion 14749, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on physical activity, diet and healthy weight. I allow that statement to move on, so I will have to suggest to the members speaking in the open debate that they trim their speeches from six minutes to five minutes. All those speaking in the open debate, including Bruce Crawford, Stuart Stevenson, Emma Harper, John Mason, Liz Smith, Tom Mason and Ian Gray—five minutes rather than six minutes. Apologies that we have to do so, but I think that there was a healthy political interest in the previous subject.


When it comes to the Republican Party's ongoing assault on our democracy, we might not be seeing much movement in Congress. However, thankfully, Biden's Department of Justice is actually going after Republicans who are functionally trying to rig elections in their favor by doing voter suppression and explicitly partisan gerrymandering. So as David Nakamura and Devlin Barrett of the Washington Post explain, the Justice Department has sued Texas for the second time in a month over voting related concerns, this time alleging that Republican state lawmakers discriminated against Latinos and other minorities when they approved new congressional and state legislative districts that increased the power of white voters. Attorney General Merritt Garland's announcement on Monday marked the Biden administration's first major legal action on redistricting. It comes at a time when the U.S. House is narrowly controlled by Democrats. Many GOP-controlled state legislatures are tightening voting restrictions and both parties are trying to draw maps to their own advantage ahead of the 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential election. While the Supreme Court has declined to put limits on partisan gerrymandering, it is illegal to draw lines that are unfair to racial and ethnic minorities. The 2020 census showed that the Texas population had grown dramatically over the past decade by nearly 4 million people. Most of that growth was among minority populations with white Texans accounted for only about 5% of the increase. The growth means that the number of Texas seats in the U.S. House of Representatives will rise from 36 to 38. Texas is the only state to gain two seats. Rather than reflect the surging Latino voting strength in the state, the Justice Department argues the new districts would unfairly and illegally dilute their representation. So they're pretty brazen about this. This is a very explicit attempt to disenfranchise Latino voters who would disproportionately vote in favor of Democrats as opposed to Republicans. Now looking at a map, it really becomes even more clear how brazen they are. So compare the current map to the new map and as you can see here, safe Republican seats have nearly doubled in Texas. But if district lines were drawn fairly, they would not have that many safe seats. They would lose safe seats given the demographic changes in that state. So the fact that this happens in the United States and it has always happened and it's getting worse, I mean, it should worry people. This is an erosion of democracy. This is a watering down of representation. It's brazen and it's not like Democrats don't also do partisan gerrymandering, but the solution is to just not do partisan gerrymandering. There's a bill in Congress right now that the Democrats have not passed because they are refusing to get rid of the filibuster. That's called before the people act that would outsource the redrawing of district lines to independent nonpartisan commissions. So they're not trying to draw lines based on which party is going to be successful. They're trying to draw lines on how to best represent a particular district. That's the way that it should be. And Republicans do not support this. So overall, even if both parties engage in gerrymandering, Democrats are the only one to give them credit words to who's trying to take action or at least they're signaling their support for action. But whether or not they're going to abolish the filibuster and actually get it done is a different story. Now, aside from partisan gerrymandering, the DOJ has also targeted other states that have cracked down on voting rights, namely Georgia. So in June, the Justice Department sued Georgia over new statewide voting measures that federal authorities allege purposefully discriminate against African-Americans. And last month, the Department sued Texas over a separate law that federal officials say would disenfranchise eligible voters, including older Americans and people with disabilities by banning 24-hour and drive-thru voting and giving partisan poll watchers more access. So it is important that the DOJ is taking action. But having said that, though, I want people to understand that this shouldn't be the only avenue that Democrats pursue in trying to protect voting rights and further enhance democracy. They have to pass the For the People Act. They have to pass any voting rights reform. But who knows if they're actually going to get that done given the limited amount of time left? I mean, 2022 is right around the corner. And going into this next year, they're going to be shifting gears. They're no longer going to be hyper-fixated on legislating. And instead, they're going to be thinking about their own electoral prospects. So we're going to see a shift in priorities. And you can't just change priorities and focus on the election without getting really important things done, like the For the People Act of voting rights reform. But I would argue that most Democrats will do that. But who knows? I hope that they prove me wrong. You have to fix this issue because the harder or the longer that you wait to fix these issues that are plaguing our democracy, the harder it gets to actually fix them. The momentum is rolling in the opposite direction currently. And we see a full-on assault on democracy by Republicans and Democrats. Most elected Democrats just aren't taking this seriously enough. I can't necessarily say that about the House. But Senate Democrats, I mean, if they truly cared, they would be calling on their colleagues to abolish the filibuster. But we've come to a point where Democrats have chosen the filibuster over democracy itself. And that may sound hyperbolic, but it's true. You're not going to have time again. In the event Democrats lose in 2022, I mean, these districts will be redrawn for a decade. So you're likely not going to have full control of government for a very, very long time, most likely. So things that you don't get done now, I think it's logical to expect them to not be accomplished within 10 years. So now is the time to act. Now is the time to not just do voting rights reform and gerrymandering, but pass a minimum wage increase. Do things that enhance democracy and make it so that we're not constantly going backwards, constantly worrying about Republicans stealing elections. But they are just not serious enough about this, and it's because Democrats just don't have the desire to fight. They could be taking meaningful action right now when it comes to improving people's lives. Hell, who knows where Build Back Better stands? Will we even see the investment in climate change that was promised? We don't know. But what we do know is that the time to act is running out and it's good that the DOJ is taking action. But this can't be the only route that you pursue. You've got to do more. You've got to protect the vote. You've got to expand voting rights and get rid of barriers to voting. Voting should be easier, not difficult, but increasingly that is unfortunately the case because of Republicans. So, you know, they're going to win by cheating. And if you know this and you're not doing anything about it, I can't help but think that you're complicit here.


Hi guys, this is Dr. Ahmet Ergen. Today I'm going to talk to you about which type of diabetes is more dangerous. Let's get started! Before we do that, I'm going to introduce myself. I'm Dr. Ahmet Ergen. I'm an endocrinologist and see I have a lot of patients in my clinic and I love educating my patients. That's why we do these videos. If you like them, please subscribe. Please share this video and spread the word. Now, which one is more dangerous? Which one is more dangerous? I would say type 2. And here's why. Type 1 diabetics, if they are actually good type 1 diabetics, if they know what they're doing, if their blood sugar is under control, they will never have problem with their diabetes. Yes, it's inconvenient. Yes, they have to take insulin all the time, etc, etc. But the bottom line is, as long as they manage it well, the chances of complications from type 1 diabetes is very low. As long as they keep their A1C down and so forth. When we type 2 diabetes on the other hand, by the time they get diagnosed, they have typically something called insulin resistance. Now, insulin resistance is the main problem. Diabetes comes later. Now, insulin resistance is the main reason why a lot of diabetics end up having heart attacks and strokes, why they end up losing so many years from their life, even if their diabetes is well controlled. So, of course, if it is not well controlled, they're going to suffer way more. But sometimes, by the time they have a diagnosis of diabetes, they already have underlying cardiovascular disease. They already have underlying neuropathy. They already have underlying eye disease. Sometimes even kidney disease. So, nowadays, we catch diabetes pretty early, thankfully, with the screenings and all that good stuff. But definitely, a lot of type 2 diabetics, when they get diagnosed, if it is a slow process, they tend to push it away or get into a denial. And they don't control it for the first 5-10 years until their blood sugars go really out of whack. Or they start having complications. They hit the wall and they start saying, oh, well, maybe I should do something. So, when that is the case, they already have a lot of complications established by 10-15 years into diabetes. And it's still important to control diabetes at that stage, but they are fairly late in the game. So, that's why I would not wait to control your diabetes, especially if you have type 2. If you are pre-diabetes, I would definitely, definitely take aggressive measures to reduce my cardiovascular risk, if it was me. I would definitely change my entire lifestyle. I would do everything to prevent progression to diabetes and so forth. If you're a smoker, quit smoking, change your alcohol habits, etc. So, that is going to be your pivoting point, inflection point. If you don't do that, you're going to be way too late. As a result, guys, type 2 diabetes is way more dangerous than type 1 diabetes. I hope that answers your question. And for the next video, we will see you. Have a great day.


The medical experts have made recommendations on how to improve health financing and ensure efficiency in Nigeria. Now these came up on the sidelines of a continuing medical education program in Lagos, where the theme healthcare diversification in a developing economy details in this report. The way a country finances a healthcare system is a critical determinant for region universal health coverage. In Nigeria, the health sector is financed through different sources and mechanisms. Unfortunately, achieving the correct plan remains a challenge. Medical experts have converged on their CME maintenance put together by CLEMA Lancet to tackle some of the inherent challenges. Access to healthcare, interdisciplinary collaboration, as well as medical assets financing, takes center stage. We know that most of the patients in Nigeria, about 70% of them are out of pocket. But there are initiatives that have been in place. We've always had health insurance. We have donors as well, and the government has also earmarked the basic healthcare fund that they've put in place to be able to help the citizen to access it. So apart from budgetary allocation, these are areas and ways that we can now see that the government as well, and even the private sector is trying to synergize and help to ensure that the citizens are able to afford healthcare. There are lots of healthcare enthusiasts that do not even have access to the right funding, thereby not being able to set up the kind of standard that they probably want to set up, not being able to, you know, the kind of technology or equipment, modern equipment that's necessary for a start-up healthcare organization. So basically in the medical laboratory space where we play, over the years there's been improvement, there's been a lot of entrance. The professionals does course on cancer management in Nigeria. It's efficiency and the need to ensure standardization in the medical laboratory science space. It is that go into determining what we now talk about in cancer case, individualized, personalized treatment. And it means that if Mr. A and Mr. B have a particular cancer, because of their genetic makeup, they will not manifest the cancer in the same way, and they may necessarily not benefit from the same treatment. So those are the things that will be updating the community about that. Cancer is not one disease, but it is a heterogeneous disease. And for the laboratory, what is expected is the ISO 15189, the 2012 version. Now today they go, the 2022 version was just published. So it gives room for additional provisions for the capturing of the quality standard. So when you understand the quality standard, now you begin to look at it. How can we implement it? So the implementation of it is key. Now some of the challenges include the ability for us to understand what is expected from us. Two personnel that have this quality management system as part of the infrastructure technology to ensure that this is done. And with the rate of doing currently in the country, a lot of our experts who are training are moving across the country. There is a dire need to ensure that resources are used more efficiently, while at the same time removing financial barriers by shifting focus from out-of-pocket payments, OOPs, to order-heating resources. And don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.


Think Tech Away, civil engagement lives here. Welcome back to Out of the Comfort Zone on Think Tech on Spectrum OC 16. I'm your host, Arby Kelly, and I am very excited for the guests we're having today. Now we have with us today world-renowned body language expert, Mark Bowden. Hey, Mark, how you doing? Hey there. Good to see you. You know, I'm back again. Why? Because the interview was so great last time and love being on your show, so here I am. Good to see you. I'm really happy you're back, Mark. So we wanted to start out, if you were watching guests last time when we were here, Mark was talking about his new book, Truth and Lies. So Mark, I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit about who should read this book and then maybe even give us a sneak peek, a little preview of what's inside. Yeah, for sure. So Truth and Lies, what people are really thinking, the new book out by myself and Tracy Thompson. Here's what I would say about it. Oh, by the way, it just came out in the U.S., I think, last Monday or Tuesday. So it's new, obviously you can get it from Amazon and any good bookstore that you usually go to. Now, what's it about? Actually, I'd say this, although it says it's a book about body language and reading body language and trying to tell what people are really thinking, I would say actually what it is is a book on critical thinking disguised as a book on reading body language. So actually, what I'd say it's really about is how can you get closer to the truth of what somebody is thinking and feeling by looking at their behavior. And here's the way I'd explain this is, we make judgments about people all the time.  We judge people all the time. And our judgments are either very, very accurate, very, very inaccurate, or something in between all of that. However, it will always feel to us like we've been very, very accurate. So we have these huge feelings of being great people at reading body language. And sometimes we are, sometimes we're not, and all the stuff in between, we remember the times when we got it really right. The times when we got it really, really wrong, we kind of go, oh, I just don't know people anymore. Like, I don't get anybody anymore. And that lasts a few seconds and then we go, no, I do, I'm a great reader of body language and behavior. It's just they were broken, they're an odd one, they're like the odd one out. And then all the stuff in between, which is the decisions and the judgments we make many, many times a day with many, many people, we forget about all that stuff. And we're very average about reading body language the most of the time. So what this is a book about is how do you think more carefully about the judgments that you make, and how could you get those judgments more accurate more of the time? How does that sound to you? That sounds like something I really, really want to read. And I wish my copy would arrive already, all right? So would you even be willing to like crack open the cover and maybe read us a couple of paragraphs? Yeah, for sure. Oh, how about this? How about this? Well, I've just, all I've done is open a chapter 11 here and this is called I'm Going to Pay for That. And what happens here is we give you a scenario that you probably may well have experienced. This is in the dating section right at the start and I'm going to read a description of a situation for you that you may have been through yourself and many of the listeners will. Listen to this description and then let's have a conversation about what you heard at the end of it. It's certainly just about a page long, okay? Here it goes. So this is called I'm Going to Pay for That. You've been dating the same person for a little while now and things so far couldn't be better. You're in the honeymoon phase. Every day you grow more comfortable together, learning each other's lovable habits, idiosyncrasies, likes and dislikes, what makes you both happy or sad? It's all good. You have a date planned and you show up late, not just a few minutes but almost an hour. Your excuses? Your phone battery died. You couldn't call. You were stuck on the subway, all of which is true. You have a good reason for being late.  Surprisingly, your date smiles and seems totally fine, cool, still calm. They even look a little too calm, almost serene. You ask if they're okay and they say they are. You assume this is a potentially a time bomb that will explode when you least expect it. Regardless of their outward body language of tranquility, you think I'm going to have to pay for that. What do you make of that? Here's a situation whereby, from what I'm reading there, there's lots and lots of signals and verbal signals to say, it's okay. You're late. It's okay. I take your excuse. It's okay. But you as the reader of the situation and the body language, you're going, no, no, I can't trust these signals at all. I'm absolutely going to pay for this later.  This is something that actually happens to me a lot because what's happening here is your own issues and the little voices inside your head that tell you how the world is are telling you one thing and you believe in that worldview so strongly it warps everything you see. So even though you're clearly getting signals, hey, it's okay. Mistakes happen. It'll be fine. Let's just sit down and have a nice dinner. Your hearing, I'm going to punish you for this later and you're going to worry about it until it happens. Right. You've absolutely got it spot on there. There is nothing in that description that would denote anger in anybody. There's nothing that denotes deceit. Every single signal that I read out there suggests the person speaking to you is being honest and truthful with you and they're fine. They get it. And your explanation is true, but there's something in your own worldview that says I can't trust my judgment here. I can't trust my reading of this situation. I'm going to have to pay for that. And what we've got to think about this is how often are we viewing the whole world around us through that lens, the lens of what we expect? And are we ever really going to be able to truly judge the situation for what it is? And if we were to do that, how would we do it? How would we get, because in this situation, I would say the judgment of I'm going to pay for that is a long way from the truth from what I'm reading in that situation. The key is, is how would we get this person, how would we get ourselves closer to the truth?  Give me some answer to that. Well, I'm really sorry you asked that, because I was hoping to find the answer to that question. Because that's something I've been struggling with personally that I was, I was, as you were talking, I was like, he has the answer I need. So maybe you can tell us. All right, so look, the first key, I think I understand in my experience, the first key to really reading body language and getting closer to the truth is always to suspend judgment. Yeah, you have these judgments about the world around you, but the first thing you want to do when you want to get closer to the truth is go, okay, this is a judgment. I'm judgmental. I'm going to put that judgment to one side. I'm going to hang it up for a bit. For sure, I can come back to it. I can take it down later, but I am going to hang that judgment up for just a little while and explore this idea more. So I call this the scan technique, S, for suspend judgment. C of scan, that acronym scan, is to look at the context, is to go, what's the context of this judgment that I'm making? Now, if I know that, you know, I know enough about myself to think, okay, you know what, I kind of negatively judge a lot, even when I've told the truth, and even when somebody has said, you know what, it's okay, for whatever reason, for whatever experiences that I have, I tend to default to a bit of a negative judgment. I now know I'm in that context, okay? The A in scan is ask what else? Ask for more information. So can I get more information out of this person who I'm reading the judgment of, I'm going to pay for this? Can I get more information from them around that? So can I say, you know what, thanks for that sense of it's okay me being late. I just worry sometimes that things like that aren't true. I wonder, you know, can you reassure me a little more about that? So I might need to have in my relationship a little bit more openness to ask for more data around that. And once I've got that data back, I can put the whole of the thing together and N make a new judgment. The N of scan make a new judgment, which by the way could be the old one. I could just come back to the old judgment and go, hey, old judgment, fine. It is as I thought it was. I am going to pay for that. But you may well get a new judgment and that might be closer to the trigger. So scan, suspend judgment, think about the context and what else? And then new judgment. So there's your answer. I love that. That is so helpful. And I can even see like the situations I'm picturing in my head that's basically exactly what you have to do in order to come to a clear understanding of the real situation. That is so cool. Thank you. Well, I mean, that is the, that's really the format of the book is that every chapter, and there's a lot of chapters, it's a pretty thick book. Look at the size of my face compared to the thickness of that book. It's a pretty thick book. So there's plenty in there, but we've got, oh gosh, like 36, 37 chapters or so. Each one with a scenario, split into three parts. First part of it is about dating. Second part of it is about friends and family. Third part of it is about your work world. I think really all the important relationships in your life are around, you know, the, the, the love life that you may have, the family life and friends life that you may have. And also the work life that you may have. I don't actually think we probably have any relationships much outside of that. Yeah. So we've tried to tackle all of that in about 37 chapters, a great story in each one. And then we go through that scan system to say, let's look at the story and unravel it and see how we get closer to the truth. Now, I have to say it is full though of all the great ideas that you want to know about body language. Oh, and lots of things, lots of misbusters as well. So my guess is you've come across a lot of things in body language that everybody believes to be true, but you know, isn't. Yeah, exactly. Like, like, for example, like, for example, this one. Yeah, they're holding the arms. There are so many other things it could be and it could be what everyone thinks it is, or it could be like a dozen different other things. But people just take that as what they assume it is. How about this one? Oh, the nose touch? Okay, I get a couple things with that one. Because nose touching is sometimes a cue that someone could be lying. But some people take that to mean it is lie deception every time they see it, which just doesn't sound like our nose is itch. Sometimes it just happens. Right. And there's no cue. Yeah, I don't know about you, but I get really bad allergies, like what we call hay fever. Yeah. So during certain months, I spend a lot of time doing this. And we're not supposed to do this on camera, but it happens. It just happens. Right, but this one as well, where people touch their ears as well, which is meant to be. Or maybe they're looking up into the left instead of up into the right. That one, oh my gosh. Yeah, yeah. So there's some crazy stuff out there. And it's not that any of this is untrue. Yes, no, that can be something to do with deception, but never always and potentially very little of the time. Especially in certain seasons with human beings, very little of the time. The key is how would you get closer to the truth of what it is? You need to use this scam system, spend the judgment, look at the context, ask for more data, and get more data from around. As long as it takes till you get to the new judgment. I'd like to say there's no one cue that all liars do all the time. But most people, most of our audience even, when you're looking for a sign that someone is lying, you're looking for a giant red flag. And there's no giant red flag.  And you have to look for several of them in the area to be like, oh, there's a dead body buried there. So don't just take it at face judgment, viewers. You've got to dig in and look for the context, like Mark says. Look for new answers. Get more information before you really come to a conclusion. Now, viewers- I think you're absolutely right. What tends to happen is we pick up on one idea, one thing, and we go, look what I saw. So, you know, self-soothing gesture, for example. We've got a self-soothing gesture or a barrier gesture, a blocking gesture. And we go, oh, you see, I saw it. I saw it. And we don't take in all the other things that were part of it. We maybe get adapters, which is when we start altering the world around us. And that's often a show of stress, but we don't know what it's stressed to. But sometimes the world does need altering. So the world that doesn't need, you know, didn't need altering.  But maybe the adapter needed to happen. Maybe my collar is tight, you know? You know, maybe, you know, I'm stressed about something else, not the dialogue that's happening. So that's where the scan technique helps you go through a very set process of checking in and getting closer to the truth. This is brilliant, Mark. And viewers, we are going to take a very, very brief short break and we will be back in just a minute with more information about how you can detect deception and make sure what you're seeing is what's really happening. See you in a minute. Planning all week for the day of the big game. Watching at home just doesn't feel the same. But on the list is who's gonna drive. It's nice to know you're gonna get home alive. Plan for fun and responsibility to the DD. Captain of our team, it's the DD. For every game day, assign a designated driver. Hi, I'm Ethan Allen. Your host of Think Tech's likeable science show. Every Friday at 2 p.m., we delve in the magical, magical, fascinating world of science. How science applies to your life. Why you should care about science. What impact science has on you and on those around you. Why you need to know some science. It's a fun, interesting, painless way to learn some good science that you can use. See you there. Hi, I'm Pete McGinnis-Mark. And every Monday at one o'clock, I'm the host of Think Tech Hawaii's Research in Manoa. And at that program, we bring to you a whole range of new scientific results from the university, ranging from everything from exploring the solar system to looking at the earth from space, going underwater, talking about earthquakes and volcanoes, and other things which have a direct relevance, not only to Hawaii, but also to our economy. So please try and join me one o'clock on a Monday afternoon to Think Tech Hawaii's Research in Manoa. And see you then. Hello, I'm Yukari Kunisue. I'm your host of New Japanese Language Show on Think Tech Hawaii, called Konnichiwa, Hawaii, broadcasting live every other Monday at 2 p.m. Please join us where we discuss important and useful information for the Japanese language community in Hawaii. The show will be all in Japanese. Hope you can join us every other Monday at 2 p.m. Aloha. Welcome back to Out of the Comfort Zone on Think Tech on Spectromosi 16. I'm your host, Arby Kelly, and I'm here with special guest, Mark Bowden, who is an expert in body language communication and what we're talking about today, deception detection. So while we were over the break, I was asking Mark about what to do when you've seen a couple of those red flags and you're pretty sure someone is lying to you. So Mark, in your advice, what would you tell the viewers to do next? Yeah, so if you see what we might call a cluster of signals, to the extent that you're now going, hang on, there was a lot of data around there that makes it feel significant enough for me to want to now go back over the story and see whether the same behaviors happen again, yeah? Or see whether the story starts to change. To see whether people disassociate themselves from the story, so they're now not a main player in it. The order of the story starts to move about in some kind of way. You see some of the same maybe self soothing gestures or blocking gestures or adapters during that. You may see them put up barriers or move away from you as you interview or interrogate them for want of a better word, around this story. And notice if the story changes, not only in its structure potentially, but the detail. And then you might want to go, you know, I'm kind of interested in what you're saying because the first time I asked you, you said X and then I asked you again and it changed to Y and I'm just curious, right? Which one was it? And then again, you want to see where they go with that. Now, from the work that I've done with law enforcement, people investigating, people working, doing interviews with suspects or persons of interest, what we talk about is we're looking for the moment often when the body falls to bits, when now as they're telling you the story, they can no longer construct the world of the story anymore in a way that really holds together. It's become too much stress and they can't control their body anymore. And now the body really starts to open up and give you much bigger signals around how they're feeling, thinking and tending inside.  We were saying, you'll have heard this, are we? Where people say, well, the body never lies. Yeah, it does, of course it lies. It's brilliant at lying, fantastic at lying, fantastic at lying until it falls to bits. And then it's not good at lying. So you've got to get the person into a place where by they're not so much in control of the situation. They're not so ordered in their mind. And now there's gonna be a bigger flood of information around deceit. I hope that makes sense to you, Arvina. And my guess is you've seen a lot of this in the work that you've been doing in the study that you're doing about this. I'd be interested to see what ideas you have as well and what you've seen. I think you're exactly right in that people are able to control their body language and put off a certain image. For example, people think I'm a lot older than I am because of the body language I put out there that makes me seem more credible, more competent, more trustworthy. That is something even predators on the street, you hear things about Ted Bundy that, oh, he was so charming. That's because people are able to control their body language and change the way people see them. Sometimes people can be very skilled at that. On the other hand, there are people who really have no idea what messages they're sending. Don't have the skills to correct that, which is where I as a trainer come in to help them figure that out. But I think it's absolutely true that in a deceptive situation or something where we're trying to do what's best for our own interests, we are very particular to make sure we're sending the right signals. And I think it's exactly as you say, Mark, that the breakthrough in any interview or interrogation comes when you've gotten the person to the point where they stop trying to hide it and they're so not kind of amped up. They're up to the point where they are so busy thinking about how am I gonna get out of this? How am I gonna make it work? That their body language is wide open and telling you everything you need to know. Right, absolutely, absolutely. And I think you're right in the, if we move away from this area of deception and law enforcement and interview and people of interest within some very serious crimes in many cases, but we just get back into the area of work and relationships and try to get on and trying to get what we want from life. You know, all of us can do better if we study how to control our body language and get across an image that might well give us an advantage. I don't think any of us have any problem with picking up a hair product from the shelf and using it in order to make that part of us look better. Nobody has a problem with going to a store and buying good clothes that they're gonna feel really confident in. But sometimes we seem to have a problem with saying, well, we're gonna put on behavior and body language to give us an advantage. People go, well, hang on, that's not authentic. The way my hair hangs together is not authentic. It has a product in it, which keeps it in place. I didn't get born with clothes made by, you know, very expensive Italian tailor called Etro. I went and purchased this because it looks really good on me and makes me feel confident and other people, I think, are confident about me. You know, I look at how great you look at me and you make a really good concerted effort to be the best you can at all times. I doubt you have a problem with looking your best. And so therefore, you know, my appreciation is you don't have a problem with training other people in the body language techniques of presenting yourself at their best. What are your views on that? Well, something that comes to mind as you talk about looking your best is that viewers, if you were to look at my face, you would think I was wearing lipstick and maybe eye makeup. But you have no idea how much makeup I actually put on in order to look this good on camera. Like my cheekbones are not naturally this defined. My cheeks, like contouring, no, this is all fake. Like every single thing on my face has a product on it to present and look good on camera. And so a lot of people, I think you're right, Mark, a lot of people think it is being inauthentic or disingenuous, but that is what people do. Even the Egyptians were using eyeliner. Even the Egyptians had specific ideas about how a person should look, a person should act. And so for people to say that acting a certain way or looking a certain way or changing anything about themselves is inauthentic or disingenuous. Well, people were born naked. I was born bald, you know, but we change and we grow and we get better at things. And I think it's necessary that we do. That's very true. So for me, I'm excited by the truth of the lies of all of that. You know, I want to let you into a secret about this environment here. My guess is when you look at me on camera is you kind of think it must be a really bright day out there wherever Mark is. Let me just show you that, no, it isn't. It's done with lights, but I can turn those out. And there's another one over here, which I can turn out as well. Are we all, hang on, there we go. Well, let me turn it off. Oh, it won't turn off, hang on. There we go, there we go. Turn that one off. Well, it's a different world now. It's not a bright world in here. It's kind of a bit of a dark and dingy world here now. I don't feel as excited about the day here the lights going down. It's 7.30 in the evening for me right now. So, you know, I've had a long day already and I could come to you with that feeling of having a long day and the shadows falling around me. Or I can put on the lights around here and give you that sense of, you know, it's a bright sunny day where I am. We have no problem about that. So why should we ever have a problem about putting on behaviors as well? To get the best for us and to get the best for the people around us. The way I talk about it, when I'm working with banks or insurance agents or anything like that, as I say, if you're being honest in your body language, then when you come into work with a bad day or a bad attitude, you lose customers. So body language and your outer appearance, you need to be able to use it in order to show up and give your very best on the days when you feel like you have nothing left to give. And that's the power of body language. Right, for sure. I totally agree with that. I mean, look, here's the thing. Here's what I'm gonna do for you. Is, you know, as you probably know, I'm ranked as one of the top body language experts in the world. I think a couple of years running, I was voted number one body language professional in the world. So really, I should be able to come on your show and do anything I like because I'm the best and people should be able to, so I'll just be the authentic me and just hang out here.  I can't feel it, but something is different. Right, right, exactly. But I should be able to do this because build it and they should come. I turned the camera away from how untidy this area is over here. So look, that shouldn't matter, should it? It's really bad lighting, but that shouldn't matter, should it? I'm gonna cross my arms right now, but that shouldn't matter, should it? Because I'm... Maybe smirk it in the air. Right, I don't know. You know, I have to, you know, market myself, essentially even though, you know, I'm one of the best around, I've still gotta market myself and other people need to do the same. Now, Mark, I've so much enjoyed having you on this show and I hope I can convince you to come back to this show again because I want you back. I'm sure the viewers will want you back. But for now, viewers, we are going to say goodbye and I will see you next Tuesday at 1 p.m. on Out of the Comfort Zone. See you then.


Hello and welcome to the Dave Gage show presented by Buffalo Wildlings. I'm Greg Royce showing my students in baseball coach Dave Gage. Coach you opened a conference play this past weekend.  So kind of take us to that win and especially the pitching performance of Mike Ramirez. A great week for us overall, as you said, our starters did a tremendous job. Mike was phenomenal that day. We were calling pitches. All three pitches were working. And at this level when all three pitches work, it's you're very, very tough to beat and he was hitting his spots. And our defense did a really good job, too. Made some great plays, couple diving plays, outfield assists. So just overall, I thought that was our most complete game. You know, we executed a couple a couple bunts that were timely, a good base running, a couple of hard 90 infield singles. So just overall a very, very good game on Wednesday afternoon up at York. Yeah. And then this weekend, you open up a conference play against Weiner. 17-6 went home on Friday, then split up at Weiner on Sunday. Again, great pitching all three days. And I just kind of take us to, you know, the weekend. Sure. Starting pitching, again, was was phenomenal. Each one of those guys did what they were supposed to do. They competed.  And I thought that's what our starters had been doing this year and just go out and compete. And you saw that. And they did a good job. They threw strikes. I got to imagine our walk numbers were down. You know, I didn't look at it a ton, but I know our earned run numbers were down. So very happy. And then hitting the ball, I thought Friday we were phenomenal. We had a seven run inning and a second inning. And that's a really good way to start off conference play. And then yesterday, we faced a really good pitcher in game one against Weiner and grinded out a win there and again, played good defense in the second game. You know, I thought I thought the game could have went either way, but we, you know, still came away. We had a chance there in the last inning, tying run on second base. So overall, good weekend one series, like you said, three and one week. So overall, pretty happy with where we're at. Yeah. And that's all I can ask for is, you know, either win the series, B to B in the games that necessarily you don't pull out. So they have a chance in the final inning. Of course, it's just being competitive, you know. And as you said, as we want to make sure every out is meaningful and that we're not giving away out. And I thought that we did that for the most part in all three or all four games last week. Yeah. And overall, as you said, your goal is sure is just keep getting better every day. And it appears, you know, at least, you know, look at the scores and results that you guys have been doing that. For sure. I thought last week was probably our best week of baseball. And as I've said, as you just said, is our goal is to improve. So if you're playing the best baseball lately, that's what you want to do. Now can we take it another step this week? Because we're going to play a very good team in hood this weekend. Yeah, obviously in the conference series against hood, like you said, a very good team.   Of course. I mean, I think they're 15 and one right now. They're playing really good baseball. I think they're receiving votes in one of the, you know, national polls. So quality team and we had a good practice this morning. And hopefully we'll just continue to get better as the week goes on and be prepared Friday afternoon. All right, Coach, we wish you the best of luck this weekend and we'll talk to you next week. Thanks, Greg. All right. For Dave Gage, I'm Greg Royce. This has been the Dave Gage show.


Four years back When Narendra Modi and BJP were in the electioneering mode One section which came out in support of them is the peasantry and there was specific reasons for that Narendra Modi and the BJP promised literally the wish list of the farmers In fact, if you take the BJP manifesto It would read almost like the charter of demands of the all-india Kisan Sabha except for land reforms almost on all other issues there are assurances and through more than 300 meetings in which he himself were present and many more where his 3d images spoke to the people It was promised that His government would Azure in Achyedin for the peasantry and the rural poor It was promised that farmers would be given remunerative prices according to the Swaminathan Commission's recommendation that is at least 50% more than the cost of production And it was also said that farmers suicides would no longer happen in Modi's India John mentioned how in 100 days we got to know what is going to happen in the coming days In fact, we all knew before itself. What is going to happen to this country under this government? Within a week, we met the agriculture minister and said please implement the Swaminathan Commission's recommendation of C2 plus 50 percent and He told us That is just an election time Promise to get the votes. It is not going to be implemented. Why do you take it so seriously? And within some time the BJP president said it is a Chunabi Jumla and they went to the Supreme Court and claimed that this cannot be implemented because it Distorts the market So very clearly we know in whose favor this government stands Four years now the number of farmers suicides the latest figures have not been given a lot of the figures have been fudged Many states are showing that zero suicides But the figures given so far is 36,000 of which around 12,000 in the first three years have happened just in Maharashtra Malnutrition, it's a national shame During a protest in Maharashtra. I found a newspaper report which said that about 9,000 children below the age of five had died due to malnutrition in five in a period of Five months. I thought it is an exaggerated report when I looked into what happened in the one year 21,000 children below the age of five had died due to malnutrition in the state of Maharashtra The status in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh is much worse so now Another promise was that farmers land would not be taken without the Consent of the farmers and agriculture workers Within six months a land acquisition ordinance was brought which said there is no need for any consent There is no need for social impact assessment There is no need to stick to the food security safeguards on food security which were there in the 2013 act against this attack on the land of the peasantry We managed to build a massive issue-based unity called the Bhoomi Adhikar Andolan in which more than 300 organizations came together and with massive protests across the country and also Ensuring that the political parties take a position on this The BJP government was forced to withdraw this ordinance though it tried tries to bring in this ordinance Now they are trying to push through the act Through different BJP rule states and it is to be noted here that The Chotanakpur Tenancy Act and Santal Paragana Tenancy Act Which are the result of the struggles of Birshamunda and Siddho Kanu that the British imperialist government had agreed to pass such a law This BJP government is now has now gone ahead and is crapping that to ensure that the Adivasi land can be taken over literally The potential area under the threat of acquisition is almost I would say three times the size of Britain and It is Very clearly to promote real estate profiteering that these kind of different industrial corridors are coming up We it is totally intransparent We just don't know what is the kind of industry that is going to come Even CAG reports have mentioned especially in the case of Odisha that about 92% of the land acquired is remaining unutilized for the more than five years so that is the situation we are facing in our country and Our friends in Gujarat the farmers in Gujarat say this is no Gujarat model It is actually the Modani model the Modi and Adhani's Modani model of corporate loot of land Jal jungle Zameen and also the mineral resources. That is what is happening in our country After this attack on the land of the peasantry another major attack has been on the cattle wealth of the of the peasantry We have seen how it was already spoken here How in the name of Gauraksha there has been attacks how cat different restrictions on cattle trade has been brought We have challenged it in Supreme Court and it had to be withdrawn later on but also how Different free trade agreements are being entered into to ensure that milk and milk products would come into India with without any import duties That is going to hit according to Amul Which is our most successful cooperative. It is going to hit more than 90 million Indian farmers in a major way But this government is not bothered. It is carrying on with these policies unfortunately for the Gauraksha and for the Sung Sangi Gundas the poor animals which are now a major menace for the peasantry in the That is the stray cattle menace in the entire country. We are finding especially in the north these Animals are unable to distinguish between a Gauraksha's field a Hindu's field and the Muslims field Every field is being attacked and today it is from those families also people are raising a demand that this should be There should be removal of these restrictions on Cattle trade so they have recently come out with but they have managed to Utilize this to create a communal divide and whenever there have been united struggles These kind of attacks have increased more than 40 people have been lynched 40 farmers We have seen farmers from Mewat who have been throughout generations of farmers Muslim farmers who have been into dairy farming Who have been attacked and killed? So this is happening even against this we have been able to build a broad unity with different left Kisan organizations taking a lead after Monetization every single crop there has seen a price crash There have been massive protests in Rajasthan Maharashtra in Madhya Pradesh in Haryana Jharkhand different in fact across the country We have seen the insensitive manner in which the drought hit Farmers in drought hit states of India were treated by this BJP government Many farmers were protesting in Delhi for months together the government did not even feel the necessity to meet them so in Different states there have been these struggles coming up in a big way and in Mansoor the BJP government Shot down six farmers who are demanding remunerative price for their crops Against this we managed to build a broad issue-based unity in which 190 Organizations of the farmers came together In fact the defeat on the land acquisition ordinance was probably the first defeat that the Modi government faced On the cattle trade restrictions also they had to withdraw it though It may not seem as big a defeat as the land acquisition ordinance in the center Maharashtra has had we have all witnessed the long march people thousands of people who marched a large number of them adivasis and Women in big numbers it is the women like Sakkubai and Padmavati Who marched with blisters on their feet with bleeding feats for seven days who are going to chart the course of the Coming history in coming days and here We have also managed to build a broad issue-based unity against neoliberal policies as well as against the communal and casteist forces so through these struggles We are confident that we will build an atmosphere for the defeat of the communal anti-people anti-farmers BJP government Massive struggles are formed our plant. We have already after the long march We are collecting 10 crore signatures on farmers demands on 9th August the anniversary of quit in their movement We are going to have a massive jail borough across the country in which for the first time the different adivasi Dalit organizations trade unions and to our own surprise the one rank one pension Soldiers they have also come and they said they will extend support So August 9th, we will have the jail borough September 5th We are intending to mobilize about five lakh Kisan agriculture workers and Workers in Delhi. I have been involved with political activism for almost 30 years now I have not seen anything during my lifetime of that nature. I think Probably not before also and all of you know that the imminent journalist and activist Sainath has suggested a long march of the dispossessed to Delhi In principle, we have accepted that we have had meetings with different groups of the different farmers organizations and Towards now and or so most likely that will also be happening That protest will also be happening Around November there are also going to be elections in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and elsewhere and We are confident that we these struggles We have taken the struggle to the enemies dense and we are confident that through our struggles an Atmosphere will be created for the defeat of this anti people anti peasant government. Thank you


The Senate has passed the 2022 Appropriation Bill of 17.126 trillion era. This followed the adoption of the recommendations of the report of the Senate Committee on Appropriation at Plenary on Wednesday. This comes after the House of Reps had passed the same bill on Tuesday. The bill passed a higher than the 2022 budget proposal of 16.391 trillion era proposed by the presidency in October. This 80 billion era increase in deficit shall be approved to take care of some of the additional requests from the executive arm of government. Mr. President, Mr. Nguyen colleagues, I mean thoroughly, examine the reports and recommendations of the subcommittees on Appropriations, the committee hereby recommends the constitutional approval of the bill for an ad to authorize the issue from the constitutional fund of the federation of the sum of 17 trillion, 126 billion, 873,917,692 era only. The bill for an act to authorize the issue from the consolidated revenue fund of the federation, the total sum of 17 trillion, 126 billion, 873,917,692 era only. Of which of 5 trillion, 467 billion, 403,959,863 era only is for contribution to the development fund for capital expenditure for the year ending on the first day of December 20, 2022. Hello, hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.