I would try and do my best to keep you awake for next 30 minutes since it's post lunch. But I hope you would be able to enjoy this next 30 minutes because I'm going to talk of something which is slightly different that you normally hear. Today I'm going to talk about automotive user experience and how that world is completely different than what we are otherwise used to as a designer designing for mobiles, designing for tablets, designing applications for banks and finance and stuff like that. It's a completely different challenge or it's a completely different world which I'm going to make a very limited attempt to just expose you. Let's look at what we're going to cover in this session very, very briefly. We're going to talk of evolutionary perspective in terms of how cars or the interfaces and cars I evolved. We're going to talk of what are the real user stories or what are the user perspectives. We're going to talk briefly about why it is so challenging to deal with automotive infotainment and of course how technology is shaping the automotive infotainment as we go along. So let's take a quick ride back to the history since Henry Ford did this modality for the first time. For the early drivers, they would for all you know be thinking it might be a bit easier riding a horse than riding a car because essentially it was a backbone of a car that was evolved or that we started with. But if you look at chronological history in say for example 1901, there was a speedometer and there's an odometer. For the first time cars were giving a feedback on what speed they're going at. You cut across a couple of decades later, cars evolved to be a relatively stable piece of machinery and you start using it prevalently and then next level of adjust would start in terms of while I'm driving all the way, can I keep track of the football match that is happening or can I hear radio? So it's a simple things like clocks and radios, those were integrated in cars in about 1930s and then came a era wherein it was fun, it was a pleasure to go in the cars, you would start enjoying the rides but then suddenly cities became populated, roads started choking and your urge as a consumer would start evolving, you know you would still say people are saying you know it's fun, you can go easy in the ride but it's not that easy. And that's when things like climate control has evolved wherein you know trying to make it slightly comfortable for you inside the car having AC, that's when these automatic gear shifts evolved, that's when some of these new infotainment functionalities like cassette player which were in the hook, so you suddenly have a freedom of listening the music that you want to listen and you're no more dependent on radio only. Machines became faster, infrastructure become better and suddenly speeds increased, number of vehicles on the roads increased and you know you're wondering is it really safe? I'm going at this high speed and you know there are so many of these cars going around me, that's where some of the safety considerations started coming into play, so things like airbags and some of the other if I can say safety constraints and provisions ECU, you know engine control unit, a kind of a digital brain of the car which controls the entire car's functionality, beat engine and transmission they started becoming prevalent in 1990s if you can track CD player was invented at that point of time and it didn't take much for CD player to come into the car straight away and then comes the era wherein everything that you wish from a car is already there in a car and you're looking to explore what else can I do inside the car and you started looking at some of the use case scenarios in terms of you know I need to go from point A to point B, there are these big maps for me but you know I'm still struggling to interpret those maps and still struggling to get the direction so is you know can cars take me or can cars assist me from taking me to point A to point B and that was the era of millenial if I can call it. So if you look at it navigation systems started becoming a default functions of features in the car if you can relate internet by then was extremely prevalent it was no more restricted to privilege few blackberry was in that era and you know that's the era when we started talking of you know my laptop has this processor and it is faster and stuff like that so things were getting better things were getting efficient faster and cut across today if you if you look at the journey in terms of how consumer habits have evolved last hundred hundred or years or so you will suddenly notice that the consumers today have changed quite drastically they are online all the time they take technology for granted the adultation of technology or prevalence of technology in your houses in your bedrooms your halls your offices is phenomenal you cannot spend five minutes of your life without having to indulge in one or other point of a technology that's today you suddenly have you know Bluetooth and Wi-Fi and you virtually wanting to remain connected at all point of time so how does how does the current technological landscape or the landscape of digitization reflect in cars if you look at it it's it's a it's car is evolving from a mechanical product to a completely digital product or completely digital platform and let's let's look at it in terms of how it is happening if you look at I see engine or the engine which is which is supposed to be part of the car and if you look at how it evolved over the period of last century it's it's fairly incremental change you know there's still a piston there is still a slender there's still a crankshaft and okay you keep on adding bits and bits of technology to make it more efficient make it more robust and so on but if you look at it the advances in mechanical technology of the car are fairly evolutionary in nature so what is it that is changing in last in say last ten or twenty years it's essentially the brain of the car it's essentially the electronic or a digital technology of the car that somehow is revolutionizing the way we look at cars today do you consider car as as something that takes you from point A to point B visualize yourself you know for going to buy a particular car in a dealership and then let's look at what is it that you would seek from a car you would notice that your expectations or as a consumer the things that you would qualify that your car should have is it's going to be a pretty long list lot of it touching your life what you are or who you are in various ways essentially you're if I can say you're looking at car as you alter ego as a reflection of who you are and you know statement of who you are so what do consumer expects in today's cars virtually everything that you can think of I would like my car to be the best music system that I can ever have and believe me in many houses for many people the most technologically advanced equipment for music they would have is possibly their cars you would expect your car to be your phone you would expect your car to be a computer you would expect your car to be a laptop increasingly people are expecting car to be their healthcare devices and so on so forth so it's the amount of demand that normal consumers are putting on car as a product or a rising extremely fast but with that the challenges are rising as well just imagine a scenario what I'm sure you can relate to these images just try and visualize what are the things that people do inside the car you know people would do makeup they would paint their nails they would take a call they would eat they will text we have had instances wherein you know people changing diapers in a car while driving there was a survey done in America which says that any typical American car it's 65% of the female users of the car they literally treat it as its makeup room or makeup van or vanity kit in some sense so what is happening in the process when you drive a car you know you're going at a very high speed there are a lot of other objects traveling around you at that high speed so ideally all your senses should only be directing towards driving but you should have your hands on steering wheel your eyes should be on the road and all your ears should be you know on anything that you would hear on the road does that happen no I think it's the multiplexing behavior it's the behavior shift which says that you know I can do four things five things at a time simultaneously and that is kind of impacting one's own ability to drive because suddenly you're subjecting your drivers to massive amount of cognitive load all of which all of your brain's energy should ideally be channelized on the only driving function but that's not really happening so let's look at in a systemic manner some of the components of automotive HMI you know there are certain inputs that are being given by a car you would take specific actions which would be seen as outputs of for example increasing a volume of a radio could be output of action wherein you know you turn volume up so you look at all the use case scenarios and if you try and visualize your use case scenarios you can categorize them as primary secondary tertiary primary related to only driving functions secondary possibly needing to your infotainment needs your vehicle system needs and stuff like that but beyond that tertiary need like having to text or having to tweet while driving and you would virtually try and use every system that is available inside the car in terms of displays the controls which are there on the steering wheel and so on so forth so just to visually capture there are this huge density of controls suddenly that you're dealing with there is huge amount of data of varied nature you're trying to process so you're staying and on steering wheel you would virtually want to have everything because your hands can really not be off the steering wheel there is a cluster that is constantly showing you information related to speed and directions and so on so forth so let's look at some of these components in a slightly granular manner if you look at instrument clusters itself you know traditionally they're supposed to be just speedometer automator and then telling rpm's and so on so forth etc. What's happened over the period of time is you had this analog dials they have been increasingly getting replaced with complete digital TFT screens and you suddenly have literally a computer sitting in front of you behind your steering wheel and you're completely if I can put it this way reconfigurable real estate so for example if you're driving and a call comes you do not have to look at your central infotainment screen you can see the notification on the cluster itself or if you want to access your playlist for the music really it's all about you know ensuring the driver can devote as much as mental space to primary function that is driving and how do you assist him in doing that so for example this and this is part of exactly same screen it's just that depending upon the context the display of the instrument cluster is changing. Similarly infotainment screens if you look at it this is Tesla one of the complete electrical car it's possibly the most digital piece of car that is there today and they have if I can put this whole hog in trying to put massive size display inside the car and virtually as good as trying to put your computer inside your car now it's debatable in terms of whether that's a right strategy to do are you going to provide such a big screen inside the car itself and is it going to really distract users in terms of you know having to focus on the screen as against on the road I do not think as a industry I mean through the automotive industry people have answered or arrived at the right answers if I can look at it from all manufacturers everybody currently is in a state of flux wherein people are toying with multiple technologies multiple ideas let's look at some of the most prevalent ones as a direct input on infotainment system you have all the touch screens wherein there is a screen you can actually touch on the screen and if at all you know you can use limited browsing behaviors, pipings etc to scroll through the list far evolved systems are some of the indirect systems wherein we're trying to have intelligent rotaries wherein the rotaries are mapped to the content onto the screen so I do not have to reach to the screen screen is away in the distance screen is positioned slightly high at the top so that I do not have to look inside my you know car interior so that my eyes are as much as on the road screens are positioned way above on the dash but controls are placed very near to my hands where I can access them so actions either 5 a key or rotating browsing on these controls is related to what I see on the display or you know something which is there in Mercedes there is a touchpad that would along me to for example if I need to dial say Sam I can have a picture of writing Sam S and then it will throw me a list of you know contact list starting with S and so on and so forth similarly for Audi so people have been experimenting in various major rotary controls or combination of rotary and touch enabled surfaces as an alternate methodology looking at a purely touch interfaces people have been experimenting with voice HMI's and once again it's none of these technologies are fairly foolproof because you can imagine if there are four people driving inside the car would voice HMI be effective or if your music system is playing why would voice system be effective? necessarily no so you know there are various ways in which people are interpreting voice HMI's you know there is an instruction that is come you know that comes up on screen and I just had to mimic the instruction there are systems which people are trying to evolve where in say for example if I want to play music it should be very natural very intuitive to me so I can say play music or run music or just start music all the spoken language all the spoken ways in which I can give command to the system saying that okay just start music can system understand all the syntax and still play the music so that I am not restricting user to learn a specific behavior or say personalization in the command so wherein I can define my own voice commands but like I mentioned earlier there are challenges with respect to languages, dialects, accents I am going to jump one slide ahead if you look at gesture interfaces so if you look at in addition to touch and voice people have been experimenting gestures imagine that you need to increase volume you know while playing music in your car what is the best thing to do would you reach to the screen and try and you know increase the volume up or is it very convenient just for me in the year you know in air to just have a vertical swipe to say increase the volume can I relate very natural gesture made in the air for some functions which are which are very unable to those so people have been you know experimenting with gestures like I mentioned even earlier on the surfaces or free floating in the air once again it's a technology which is evolving and it is currently limited by the constraints of hardware so for example if there is a camera looking at me and recording my gesture it depends on the shall we say parabola of camera and fidelity of camera and the ability of algorithm to interpret my gestures correctly so if you look at all the things that one would do inside the car what becomes very apparent is there is no one way of interface there is no one way of interacting with the car which would be ideal for all scenarios essentially any user experience that you would build inside the car has to be multimodal experience has to be the experience which is a combination of multiple ways of interacting with systems which suits best for the given scenario essentially you know you are coming back to the same thing you are providing appropriate cognitive tools appropriate cognitive ways to interact with the system now having learnt you know some of the basics of what automotive interfaces are let's look at how it is evolving today or how it would evolve sometime in near future you know entire world is today talking of mobile apps and there are zillions of them already on all the operating platforms there are going to be millions of them added to the bandwagon these are going to be a special kind of mobile apps which would interact with the car so increasingly you do not have to be inside your car or you do not have to only interact with car control panel to really interact with your car you would be able to interact with your car using your mobile phones you would be able to do very if you do two minutes of a brainstorming session here you will get at least 10 ideas of what you can do on your mobile phone you know for car so people have been doing a lot of things for example in EV cars checking the battery status or finding the nearest fuel pump or planning your journey going beyond navigation using your mobile phones or like I mentioned controlling cars from other ancillary devices which is becoming increasingly norm so let's look at who is spending their bigger energy on designing automotive interfaces and you would imagine it is General Motors and Ford's and BMW's and Audi's of the world there are few new players who are trying to have their share of pie some of you will be able to relate to these images some of you might know but it's the usual suspect android is investing heavily on designing their own operating system their own ways of interacting with car or virtually say operating system android for cars and so is Apple CarPlay so the battle between tech giants themselves is shifting from mobile phone to cars in some sense and if you look at the amount of automotive players who have been signing up or you know explicitly declaring themselves to be in Camp A versus Camp B you realize plenty of them and unlike the mobile word you would see people are not able to make choices so there are people who are baiting simultaneously on android as well as Apple so some of the emerging technologies so for example vehicle to vehicle communication heads up display eventually things that will come up as an overlay on your screen appization of the car and lot of you would know it's a autonomous car that is that is by Google which would you know which would drive by itself lot of these technologies lot of player have in experimental form in one or other way people have been trying to deal with regulatory challenges to figure out how do they come into the market so I am going to give you a very brief question of what we are doing in that space not you know we've been working quite extensively for a long amount long point of time so for example this is one of the interface we did which multiplexes between touch mode and gesture mode something you know but and if I look at it it is amnable for me to touch versus something which is in a virtual space that intuitively tells me you know it's a virtual space one of the show car which we've done in 2010 for Beijing Auto Show for one of the plant Tata Pixel one of the show car that was displayed in Geneva Auto Show complete 3D instrument cluster voice HMI's you know digital tree configurable instrument clusters lots of other work the last example we done this competition we participated in this competition and this particular entry happened to win the price of best user experience very simple premise the functionality inside the cars are going to go exponentially high and the only way to deal with those is to try and exponentially keep on making your interface simpler and simpler thanks a lot essentially all I am saying is car is becoming your next variable device you look at it in any perspective it is the next variable which you are dealing with thank you


s of retained EU law, which had been taken temporarily into the UK Parliament and there was a dispute over that and the Scottish Parliament did not consent to it? That dispute would be resolved on the floor of the House of Commons, and the Scottish Parliament would not have a vote on that. Ministers would have a say, but they would not have a vote. That creates a power imbalance. That is the fundamental issue that Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP and the Greens have with the proposal that has been put forward. From that point of view, it is important to recognise the point that Neil Findlay made, that the motion before us today is only a motion expressing a view, it is not the end of the process and therefore the proposal for cross-party talks, which has been positively received by Mike Russell, and there has been some positive indication from David Larrington that it should be explored. Patrick Harvie, who is always very exasperated by the whole process, is perhaps too keen to reach the end. It is important to bring all the parties into the process. I think that Alex Neil made a very—just let me finish this point, Mr Harvie. I think that Alex Neil—sorry, I will take you now. Patrick Harvie. James Kelly knows that I have not said that we will oppose their amendment. I am sceptical that another round of talks will offer anything. Can Labour say what they expect to have happen as a result of that? If the UK Government is not going to relent and reverse their position, what else is there? James Kelly? I think that that debate has been useful in terms of practical suggestions. Alex Neil was right to point out that if we get a situation where Labour and the Liberal Democrats who oppose independence and the SNP and the Greens who support independence get round the table and explore the issues with the UK Government, there is a potential way forward. We heard from Neil Bibby about making a very powerful contribution in putting forward the case for an intergovernmental agreement. We also heard from Alex Neil about the possibility of a committee of the regions of the different Parliament that could resolve disputes. That shows that there are still possibilities out there that can be explored by cross-party talks. I urge Patrick Harvie to take that on board. Daniel Johnson was right to point out that Mike Russell's contribution emphasised the merits of devolution. I think that the opportunity here, if that can be handled correctly, is to not only protect the devolution process but also enhance the devolution process. If we can get those common frameworks right and get them set up in such a way that they are agreed by both Governments, then we can assure that the powers that will come to this Parliament will enhance devolution. Neil Findlay quoted the example of procurement. That gives a powerful opportunity to ensure not only a fairer award of procurement contracts in Scotland but also the implementation of policies that would help to grow the Scottish economy in a fair manner. I think that there is anonis on all the parties in the chamber, not only to send a signal to tonight that the current settlement on the table is not acceptable, but we are not going to give up on that. There is a real opportunity moving forward with those cross-party talks to influence the process of the final House of Lords consideration and also the House of Commons consideration. I think that there is a duty to ensure that that happens, because not to do so would head down a disaster route where we end up in the courts, we end up in a potential chaotic situation and that would not serve the people that were sent here to serve in this Parliament well. I call Jackson Carlaw for around seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I start, hopefully, a note of agreement with Mike Russell and that I think that when this whole process began neither of us hoped or expected that this is where we would be this afternoon, but it is indeed where we are. I want just to refer back to the contribution of Scottish Conservatives during this whole exchange, because I think that even he might maybe express some surprise back in September when he looked around the chamber and asked for support from all sides, that he looked across to us not expecting to find it to be forthcoming, but to his surprise found that it was. We did accept that the withdrawal bill as published was unacceptable. We listened. We have worked to try and reflect and represent the concerns of the Scottish Government, because our whole objective was to get to a point where they would feel able to recommend to this Parliament the approval of an LCM this afternoon. We noted the various requests that the Scottish Government made and we believe that changes have been achieved. I do not see Bruce Crawford in the chamber, but he referred earlier on when he spoke on behalf of the committee to the fact that changes had actually been achieved to the bill and I respect the fact that he did. We also explained that that negotiation had to take account of other factors as well. I tried in the last debate that we had on this to say that this is not a bilateral discussion, this is a quadlateral discussion and that the UK Government and other parties in the other parts of the United Kingdom were concerned that, in the frameworks that had to be established, there had to be a process of agreement, but that also had to take account of the fact that the expectation that the Scottish Government could exercise a veto over what would ultimately be decided was not an acceptable outcome either. I think that it is important to emphasise despite the way that some might wish to characterise it, that our responsibility in those benches is not simply to represent the UK Government's view, but to offer a considered reflection by the Scottish Conservatives of the UK Government's position. That is why, throughout the whole process, even in the new year, we expressed frustration with the way progress was being made, we expressed frustration at the lack of an alternative clause 11 coming forward and being put on the table, but why we now believe, as do the Government in Wales, as do Labour peers in the House of Lords, as do Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords. I am not even sure if the Liberals have consulted with their two Scottish MPs in the House of Commons as to whether they entirely share the views of Liberal Democrats. I think that there are some doubts being expressed this afternoon that that is the case. We managed to achieve changes and those changes reflected many of the requests that Mike Russell made. He said that the problem was with the word agree. I may undue course. He said that the problem agreed was there with the word agree. Clause 11 was a change into the new clause 15, which expressly uses the word agreement. He talked about the need for a sunset clause. A sunset clause is now there. He talked about the need for there to be co-decision making, and that is what the whole process of the new clause 11 actually is designed to achieve. Mr Russell, in his opening, gave rather a sentimental introduction about the origins of devolution to which I think everybody would lend their support. I disagree thereafter with the conclusions that he drew. Adam Tom can set out in detail our analysis of the actual bill as now amended, and specifically of the amendments that have been made and the effect those changes would have. He quoted from Mark Dreyford. I heard what Mr Russell said in response to the Labour Party about Mark Dreyford by saying that he seemed to believe that they were more determined in Wales now to achieve Brexit than they were to stand up for the principles of devolution. I thought that that was both ungenerous and unfounded. I do not believe that is the case at all, and I believe that the Government in Wales came to believe through the course of negotiations that the outcome, just as David Steele, just as Jim Wallace, just as Labour peers in the House of Lords did, that the agreement that had been arrived at was reasonable. Neil Findlay stood up and said that this whole problem was because David Mundell, Ruth Davidson and David Lidington had failed to achieve a new clause 11. They said that they would. They did achieve a new clause 11. It is a clause 11 that the Labour Party in Wales supports. It is a clause 11 that no Labour peer in the House of Lords spoke against. I turn to Tavish Scott, who gave a long list of all the things that Liberal peers did speak against in the House of Lords. They did not speak against the particular provisions that we are discussing this afternoon, which makes a nonsense of your argument and always disproves the point that you made. I will come back to Mr Scott in a moment. I will come back to you in a moment, not only that but Lesley Laird. I have got a cue, and I will give way to Mr Findlay first. Neil Findlay. I wonder if Mr Carlaw could tell us why, when Labour put forward proposals in the House of Commons, that it would have resolved this, that it would have saved all of these discussions. I will ask him the answer, because you do not know why did the Tories get whipped to vote against it? The same way that in this Parliament, at stage 1 of a process, amendments are then considered at the report stage, and that is exactly what happened. We are now at a point where Labour in the House of Lords and Labour in Wales agree, but not Mr Findlay. One has led to the conclusion that the Labour Party in Scotland sees the political expedient argument and not actually the principle argument of devolution at all. Then we have heard arguments about a power grab. We just passed a welfare bill within the last fortnight that arose as a result of new powers being transferred to this Parliament. Derek Mackay produced a budget that increased taxes, which we opposed, but a budget that increased taxes because of new powers that the Westminster Government had transferred to this Parliament. As a result of the bill that is going through the Westminster as we leave Europe, there will be the most enormous transfer of powers to Scotland. This is not a power grab, it is a power transfer to the Scottish Parliament. I did enjoy Mr Scott's entertaining constituency association lunch speech from last Saturday, and I am sure that six of them around the table all found it very amusing, but he had nothing to say at all about the debate that we are having this afternoon. We heard all manner of arguments this afternoon. We heard from Alec Neill again about the whole misunderstanding of what we are being asked to do. We are being asked to approve a bill that says that no one member state can unilaterally change the existing arrangements being transferred from—no, it does not give the UK Government the power to do that—it says that when the powers come back from the European Parliament to the Westminster Parliament, until the frameworks are agreed, no one country within the four member states can unilaterally change those arrangements. We have been through an extended debate over the last few months. I understand and believe, ultimately, the suspicion that the Scottish Government is more motivated about producing further grievance to fight and justify an argument for independence. I am surprised that the midwives of this argument have turned out to be Mr Scott and Mr Finlay. Shame on them. This afternoon, we should recognise that there is a whole argument to be had going forward about how we best represent Scotland's interests in the discussions that are going to take place. My single worry is that Mr Russell and the Scottish Government's actions have undermined the confidence and trust that there will be in hearing Scotland's voice in those framework discussions as they proceed. That, I think, is the tragic outcome of this afternoon. We should support the LCM and allow Scotland to proceed. I call Michael Russell. Can you take us to just before decision time, please, minister? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have to say that I doubt if there has ever been so much concern expressed for the people of Wales by the Scottish Conservatives or, indeed, by any Conservatives, I would suspect. It is a charity that this afternoon even extended to the Lib Dem peers and finally to the Lib Dem MPs. Many people Scottish Conservatives do not appear to be concerned about is the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland who voted in the vast majority for devolution in 1997—let us remember—against the express wishes of the Scottish Conservatives. That is the problem of this debate. The Scottish Conservatives have forum in being against devolution, and again this afternoon they have shown that forum. Let me confirm to the Tories that I do and did and still want this process of negotiation to lead to an agreement, but not any agreement and not at any price. What we are being asked to do this afternoon is to accept any agreement at any price or rather any Tory price. I want to confirm my agreement to the Labour amendment. I wrote to Richard Leonard yesterday to indicate what I would do at the conclusion of today's debate, and if the chamber chooses to confirm that it will not give legislative consent, I will write to David Lidington this evening, asking him to come to Scotland, to come to this Parliament and to meet the parties, including the Conservatives, to sit down and to find, if it is possible, some new ways forward. There have been ideas to mention this debate that are worth exploring. I thought that Alex Neil made a very good distinction between UK Government frameworks and UK frameworks. Although some of the proposals, for example, a way in which there could be a committee of ministers that was arbitrated, have already been raised in the House of Lords and defeated in the House of Lords, it will be worth exploring those issues. We will support the amendment at decision time and I will immediately act upon it today. But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that at the end of the day, the Tories impose their will upon this chamber. What would that mean? I think that if we stand back and look at what it would mean, we understand the enormity of this situation. What is being proposed is that the Tories in London, using the votes of the DUP, would hand the power of veto of the decisions of this Parliament, this elected Parliament and this elected government to the Scottish Conservatives, to a minority within this chamber. That would be the effect of what took place, because the Conservatives would be able to veto anything that we chose to do for seven years. The anti-democratic action benefits only the Conservatives, and they will use the votes of the DUP to essentially muzzle this Parliament. That is not a price that we should pay. Why would they do that? Why would they offer that prize to the UK Government and UK Tories to the Scottish Conservatives? We heard the answer this afternoon. It is in exchange for fanatical support for Brexit. Those are people who were opposed to Brexit. Ruth Davidson demanded to continue in the single market in the customs union the day after the referendum. However, we have heard not a single word of criticism of Brexit this afternoon, nor will we hear that. The way to success in the Conservative Party in Scotland is to be a born-again Brexit here and to be an extreme born-again Brexit here. Of course, the person who takes to extremism like a duck to water is Murdo Fraser. He showed that this afternoon in his extreme view of Brexit. That is regrettable because it is doing damage to the very people that they exist to serve. We heard an example of it this afternoon from Peter Chapman. At the very moment when Peter Chapman was speaking up for Brexit, the people to whom, apparently, he is closest—the National Farmers Union in Scotland—were issuing a press release, talking about the ongoing uncertainty of Brexit, talking about the damage that Brexit would do to the agriculture community. In that show of fact, this is not a victimless crime. Why do the Tories attempt to grab power in this Parliament? People, interests, organisations, businesses are suffering the chaos of the Tory Brexit, and it is being backed by the Scottish Tories. There are a whole range of misconceptions that we have heard this afternoon from the Tories, too many to go through in detail. However, let me deal with three of them. First, that no present powers in this chamber are affected. Wrong. Let me just name three off the top of my head. Environmental protections, agricultural subsidy, protected geographical indicators—all, all, all affected. Secondly, that this is a debate about an issue on the head of the pin. They are not real issues that touch people's lives. Food standards. Ross Finney's letter last week indicated that very strongly. Chemicals. My constituents in mull who are trying to stop neonicotinoids coming into their water supply, that is affected. Public procurement, public procurement that leads to thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of jobs in Scotland is affected. Finally, clause 11 is fine. There are no difficulties. It does not give any threat of any description. The words not normally are apparently the parachute that saves us all. Those words are not in the legislation. They have already been rubbish by the advocate general, and the normality in the new clause 11 is the overriding of the Scottish Parliament. That is what the legislation says. Daniel Johnson talked about what is at stake in devolution, and he was right to do so, because a great deal is at stake in devolution. What we have here is undoubtedly the worst challenge to devolution, although we have had since 1999. Devolution is not just about us. Devolution is, if we should remember this, the constitutional steering group paid attention to this. The Scottish Parliament said that it should embody and reflect the sharing of power between the people of Scotland, the legislators and the Scottish Executive. Devolution is about how we all work together for the benefit of Scotland. I looked at the words of each of our First Ministers as they put forward their vision to be elected as First Minister. I quoted Donald Dure earlier in his opening remarks, but let me quote each of the others. Henry McLeish on 25 October 2000 said, This Parliament is about politics, and of course we will have political differences, but our ultimate aim is the same, the best interests of our fellow Scots. That is what devolution is about. Jack McConnell on 22 November 2002, on the day of the 1997 referendum, Scott voted yes because he wanted better politics and better government, and he believed that the Scottish Parliament would focus on their priorities. That was devolution. Alex Salmond on 16 May 2007, this Parliament is a Parliament of minorities where no one party rules without compromise or concession. It is about intelligent debate and mature discussion. That is devolution. Finally, Nicola Sturgeon, because you can always do better, Mr Finlay, you can always aspire to do better as we do, but I have been arguing this afternoon for what we have and how we use it, and I thought that was what something you wanted me to do. Nicola Sturgeon on 19 November 2014, those whom we represent expect us to give our very best. All of us must ensure that we do not disappoint them. They expect us to debate vigorously, but they do not want us to divide. Let's work together to create a future for Scotland that is worthy of their dreams and their trust. No, I won't. A future for Scotland that is worthy of their dreams and their trust, not the demands, the narrow interests or Tory party factionalism of the UK Government, not the demands of Ruth Davidson so that she and her fellow members can veto what an elected Government and an elected Parliament decides. But a future for Scotland, Presiding Officer, that's worthy and dreams of the trust of the people we are here to serve, the Scottish people, who would not forgive us if we gave away the powers that we are trying to use to improve Scotland. Thank you, and that concludes our debate on the European Union Withdrawal Bill UK legislation. We'll now move on to the next item of business. The next item is consideration of business motion 1-2-5-3, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme for Thursday. Could I ask any member who wishes to speak against this motion to say so now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion. Formally moved. Thank you. No one's asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motion 1-2-5-3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I think that, although the chamber does look full, I'm going to wait till 5 o'clock to make sure that every member has a chance to be in the chamber for decision time, so I'm going to suspend for a minute and a half till 5 o'clock. Thank you, that is 5 o'clock, so we come now to decision time. The first question this afternoon is that amendment 1-2-3.1, in the name of Adam Tomkins, which seeks to amend motion 1-2-3 in the name of Michael Russell, on the European Union with Droll Bill UK legislation, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 1-2-3.1, in the name of Adam Tomkins, is yes, 30, no, 95. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 1-2-3.2, in the name of Neil Findlay, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Michael Russell, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 1-2-3.2, in the name of Neil Findlay, is yes, 93, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 1-2-3, in the name of Michael Russell, as amended, on the European Union withdrawal bill, UK legislation, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 1-2-3, in the name of Michael Russell, as amended, is yes, 93, no, 30. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended, is therefore agreed. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Parliament has now agreed that it does not consent to the European Union withdrawal bill. It is a historic and significant moment for the Scottish Parliament, and I hope with all sincerity that the UK Government will respect the views of this Parliament. In view of the decision, however, taken by Parliament, would you now write to the Parliament's assemblies and legislators of the UK to inform them of our decision? I thank Mr Crawford for his advanced notice of his point of order. He is right to point out that this is a significant matter of interest to all parts of the UK. I believe that it would be appropriate for them to be made aware of Parliament's decision this evening, and I will write to my counterparts at Westminster and the other UK legislatures to make them aware of the Parliament's position. Thank you. We'll now move to members' business in the name of Sandra White on Nagpot's 70th anniversary. We'll just take a few moments for members and the Minister to change seats.


TFNN headline, news update. Welcome folks to your one PM update. I'm Steve Rhodes filling in for Tommy O'Brien. Right now we have pretty much flat markets out here. The Dow is up 11 points, no big deal. The S&P is off less than one point. So flat markets ahead of the Fed release and conference today. So we'll have some more feelings as to what the market wants to do after that. Sometimes ahead of these meetings we have tells in the market. And I've been searching around looking for those tells I don't see them. So here's what we do know right now. If we take a look at the Dow, yesterday the Dow tested and rejected its all-time swing point high. That was from April 23rd. It tested the bottom of that swing point and that's at 26503. Is that a, and there was volume if you take a look at the Dow diamonds behind that move. So price pushing into that swing point with volume. If you take a look at today's move, well it's actually done that. It's tested that 26503 or 26478. So there's the possibility that this is the identification of a top. And we will see some type of pullback or retracement in the markets. That is one, certainly, look, there's two possibilities. Three possibilities, sideways, up or down at this stage. If you take a look at the S&P 500, really the same exact pattern. Price testing, the low of the swing point for Mayday out there, May 1st. That was at 292336. You tested it, you rejected it. Today, you've been up as high as 2922. So not a test today, but again, just a sideways move. But we do have that test and rejection. Now price is gonna continue to move higher. For example, in the Dow, there's a secondary level of resistance that was set up by where price began its downdraft, its downtrend, and that's up at the highs out here. So the signal, and right now, the market conditions for the Dow are bullish. The only thing that would change that would be a close below what I refer to as Stevie's green or red line. In this case here, that's green 25987. The fact that it's green is like the green light. It is bullish. The market conditions right now are absolutely bullish, but we don't really care what it is at 102. We wanna know what it is at about 350 to this afternoon. So you're gonna have to stay tuned into TFNN when we can then analyze what the message of the markets is after the interview and the release by the feds. With regard to the S&P 500, its resistance level, 293732 is the number I've been looking for. Hey, folks, have a great day. Stay tuned. Another great programming show. The Trader's Edge is up next. Take care.


The biggest problem facing the world today is that we are lacking God. Our civilization has worn down to the foundation. We need a proper foundation, and the Eucharist is that foundation. This is the Lord's strategy.  He cares more about souls than about civilization. By fixing souls, he will fix the world.


Hello everybody. Welcome back to another AI video. In this one, I'm going to show you how to draw and turn it into AI art without having to go through any of the traditional AI image and AI art generators. Let me show you what I'm talking about.  And I'm just going to draw something nice and simple. So I'm just going to draw like a, I don't know, something like that.  And then something like that. And I kind of want this, whatever this is. I'm going to make it a little bit wonky. I'm going to make that into some sort of art. So here we go. Let's go ahead and let, you know, let's create this into, there's currently 11 different styles. Let's make this into street art. I'm going to hit submit. I'm going to come back when it's done. All right, everybody. So here it is. Here's what we came, here's what it came up with. Yeah. Okay. You know what? Not bad. You saw how ugly my drawing was. It was pretty wild, but this is a pretty cool street art. Now keep in mind, if I want to grab one of these images to use it and say, let's top left one here. It's pretty good. For example, I'm going to right click on it and then I'm going to click save image as I'll save it as number one. Why not? And then let's see what we get when I go to my finder or your explorer. I'll go to my desktop, wherever that is, click on it and presto. There we go. So this is the image that we created. We did it all by hand. Took a few seconds. Thanks for watching.


Holy s***. It's stuck. Is the scalp still there? Open it up. I don't even know what I'm looking at. What is that? I think it's the hair roots. What is that? It's like a nest. It is a nest. Hold on, hold it. Oh, good God. Something made its... Those are maggots. What the f***? That's why they left that. This is like... What does it feel like? Crunchy. Describe it. What is that? Those are nest of bugs. They're nests. Those are bugs. Look at them inside. Crack one open. No, you know what this is? Those are flesh-eating bugs. That is a nest. See? It's a nest of maggots.


So, that's nice, isn't it? Well, I've got to step in out of my man.  Why are you crouching? Smile, laugh at each other. Let me see. Laugh at each other. I've got that one.


Attention Park Hill residents this is a community notification of a new sexually violent predator in your area. Please stay tuned to the following short program for more information. Hi I'm technician Ron Hackett with the Denver Police Department. The sex offender registration and compliance unit at DPD is responsible for the registration monitoring and tracking of all registered sex offenders and sexually violent predators who live in the city and County of Denver. Here's a brief history of sex offender legislation in Colorado. Our state laws trickle down from federal government mandates. In 1994 we had the Jacob Wetterling Act which mandated that states would establish a sex offender list. Magans law of 1996 said that the public would have access to those sex offender registration lists. The Pam Litchner Act of 1996 stated that some offenders might have to have lifetime registrations. In the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 unified sex offender laws across the country. In Colorado the legislature has determined that sexually violent predators by definition pose a higher risk to the community at large and therefore mandated that upon their release from the Department of Corrections the community must be notified. Sex offender notification in Colorado happens in two ways. The first is passive and ongoing through the sex offender registration process which is a list maintained by local police departments. The second way is active via community notification for those offenders determined to be sexually violent predators by the courts or by the parole board. Most sex offenders in Colorado are supervised by the criminal justice system in our communities. Most sex offenders engage in crossover behavior which means they may have been arrested for one type of crime but be apt to commit another.  There is no typical sex offender but all tend to be deceptive manipulative and secretive. 80 to 93% of sex offenses are committed by someone known to the victim. Sexual deviancy begins in mid to late adolescence.  The community has a vested interest in helping offenders to be successfully managed in the community. Sex offenders have the same need for housing and employment as any other citizen.  There are approximately 16,500 registered sex offenders in the state of Colorado. About 65% of convicted sex offenders are placed in the community on probation. The remainder are in the Department of Corrections or Community Corrections. Offenders may be caught for one type of offense but be at a high risk to commit another type. Crime of conviction is only one indicator of risk.  The offender's residents must be verified quarterly by the Denver Police Department. The full sex offender registration list is available by calling the Denver Police Department Identification Bureau at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Convicted felons and those with multiple convictions are posted online at denvergov.org slash police.   Now, here's a look at the newest sexually violent predator living in Denver. Here's an overview of the registered sex offenders currently living in Denver. There are 2,200 total living within city limits. In Denver Police District 2, there are 385. Precinct 212 has 56 registered sex offenders. Of those, 35 have felony convictions and 21 have misdemeanor convictions. Donald Randell Bills is a sexually violent predator currently living in Denver. He is 37 years old and was born on May 31, 1977.  He's currently living at 3323 Poplar Street in the Park Hill neighborhood of Denver. Schools located within one mile of this offender include Smith Renaissance School at 3590 Jasmine Street, Steadman Elementary at 2940 Dexter Street, Odyssey School of Denver at 6550 East 21st Avenue, McAuliffe International School at 2540 Holly Street, Venture Prep High School at 2540 Holly Street. Parks located within one mile of this offender include City of Aksum Park at 4400 Bruce Randolph Avenue, W. H. Ferguson Park at East 23rd Avenue and Dexter Street, Martin Luther King Junior Park at 28th and Newport Street, Skyland Park at 5600 East 35th Avenue. Recreation centers located within one mile of this offender include Martin Luther King Junior Rec Center at 28th and Newport Street, Hiawatha Davis Rec Center at 3334 Holly Street. Bus routes located within one mile of this offender include Route 73 35th and Quebec Street, Route 43 35th and Quebec Street, Route 65 35th and Quebec Street, Route 28 up and down 29th Street, Route 38 up and down 38th Street. A brief history of charges against this offender felony sexual assault overcoming victims will felony assault to drugging the victim. He was discharged from the Department of Corrections on November 13th 2014. He registered with the Denver police sex offender registration unit on November 18th 2014 to 3323 Poplar Street. Past charges against this offender include sexual assault, felony menacing, dangerous drugs, marijuana, warrants, failure to appear, numerous traffic violations. Donald Randall Bills has been determined as sexually violent predator after meeting the following criteria. Criteria one age 18 or older on the date of the offense were under 18 and tried as an adult. The offender was the age of 27 at the time of the offense. Criteria two the crime must have been committed honor after July 1st 1997 and convicted honor after July 1st 1999.  The offender was arrested on March 8th 2005 for felony sexual assault overcoming victims will and felony assault to drugging the victim. He was convicted on October 5th 2005. Criteria three the relationship to the victim was one of the following. Victim was a stranger to the offender or the offender established or promoted a relationship with the victim primarily for the purpose of sexual victimization. The offender was a stranger to the victim. Criteria four positive results or the passing of a risk assessment instrument administered by probation parole staff and a qualified treatment evaluator. Positive results include an assessment for the presence of a mental abnormality, a level of denial regarding the offense, treatment appropriateness and motivation, presence of sexual deviant interests. The offender was evaluated by the state of Colorado sexually violent predator parole board and Larimer County courts with positive results determining him to be a sexually violent predator.


I'm sorry for interrupting this, because we're having such a good time, I'm still running out, so I want to cover as much as I possibly can, and I want to take it from that point of yours from the Finance Act. So the Finance Act has been making headlines, highlights all over the place, splashing. First time it was in the High Court, High Court capped it, Court of Appeal, you know, removed that cap, it kind of was implemented, until now the Supreme Court, you know, we're taking the Supreme Court as of today, it's a three judge bench and I'll be telling you a little bit more about that in a second, but as of now it has technically been passed through, because they're back-dating. That tax we should have paid from the 1st of July, it's been back-dated, now we really gotta pay it, so any amount that we receive as salaried peoples has been deducted as of 1st of July. Now there's a lot going on in that Finance Act, but I will take it from where LSK, LSK, the Law Society of Kenya has filed for a petition calling it unlawful, alright, and I just want to take it from the LSK point of view before we go anywhere else because there's so much, so so much. So the Housing Levy is discriminatory contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution. So what does Article 27 of the Constitution say? If I may read it for you, alright, it's equality and freedom from discrimination. So Part 2, this is rights and fundamental freedoms. Every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law. Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms, then continues, continues, continues, that is two. So Article 286, to give full effect to the realization of the rights guaranteed by this article, the state shall take legislative and other measures including affirmative action programs and policies designed to redress any disadvantaged suffered by individuals or groups because of past discrimination now. What does the Housing Levy say? The levy is payable by the employer and employee at a rate of 1.5% of the employer's gross monthly salary by the employee and 1.5% of the employee's gross salary by the employer as outlined in the Finance Act 2023, so together it's 3%. That's why generally it's 3%, but it's 1.5% of employer, 1.5% of employee. But see now this is only touching a group of people, of salaried people. And Article 27 clearly says we should all be equal before the law. Your thoughts. Okay, thank you. We always say that a legislation or an act of parliament is constitutional until it's rendered invalid. That's why we are waiting for the hearing from the three judge bench on the legality of the Finance Act 2023. All in all my thoughts are I've always been consistent that the Finance Act is not timely. Every person who is salaried by the virtue that you are salaried does not mean that you are fully capacitated or rather you are fully able and that does not mean that the government has the right to assume or rather to extrapolate taxes from everyone. If you look at, I always like giving an example of a teacher, a teacher who maybe you have four children and your salary runs from between 30,000 or maybe 20,000 to 30,000. You've taken loans, you have a house help, you need to cater for your transport and you need to pay for your children's fees. When the government comes in and tells you that we are going to tax you for a housing levy, you are not interested in that house yet you are being forced, you are being compelled to give that 1.5% of your salary as tax, as a housing tax. You know, sometimes we run out of logic and this is why we need to encourage the government, those people who are president seem buyer, they are not listening to the people on the ground and that's what Wama Connections here said that these are the people on the ground, they listen to the people. It does not mean that if I'm a teacher, if I'm being salaried, then I'm fully able. I'm also facing my own demons, financial demons and I think that's what the government should try and listen to. We look forward to, you know, a very fierce battle from the litigants and from the judges because they are very strong grounds that suppose or rather that purport that the implementation of the finance act 2023 is an infringement of constitutional rights as provided under the law and you've read for us article 27. This provision of the law talks about everyone should have equal benefits from the law. So salaried people should be treated as equals to those who are not salaried. A person who is earning a million shillings cannot claim to be taxed the same amount from a person who is earning 30,000 shillings. So we need to invite some logic within the government structure. And the employer is done. Yeah. So we need to employ wisdom because let me not say that the government is acting based on lack of it, but at least we need to get a clear information before we implement such kind of important decisions. But according to me, until the act is rendered unconstitutional, it will be implemented on Kenyans. It's already being implemented. It's already being implemented. So we are already filling the pinch. You know the voice of, we always say that the voice of the people is the voice of God. If the majority are filling the pinch of this, then we need to listen to them because they are the people who are contributing towards the progress and development of this country. Yeah. And of course our favorite body, the Kenya Revenue Authority has been allocated to be the collecting agent. And nowadays they are very active on social media. Very, very. They even come up with memes. Yeah. Okay. But the school is scary. Please kindly. I miss my bad now. Yeah. Kindly. So the three judge bench comprises of Lawrence, Mugambi, David, Majanja, and Christine Maori, if I'm correct. And these are pointed by Chief Justice Mother Kohoma. So this is going to be happening from today. Maybe I'll give you a few minutes to just give me your thoughts on that. Okay. What I want to say, I want to support what Mr. Kenya have said, that at least we have an independent judiciary and the judiciary that respects the constitution of Kenya. And also the public interest. I hope today, because they are going through a hearing, I hope that the judiciary will speak how the constitution says. Because the judges, they speak about the laws and the constitution of Kenya. We politicians, we speak about the people. But the judges speak about the constitution and also the rights of the people within the constitution, whether they are violated or infringed by the government of the day. So this is the time that the judiciary will come out clearly to defend our motherland, to defend our people. Because even civil servants, most of them, will be affected. Because some of them, they have loans, they are paying. Some of them, they have their pedants. And so many charges. So when that finance bill is still in force, everyone will be affected. Because even an employer, that's why the other day I had a president for our neighbor country, Madam Sulu said, since the finance bill in Kenya started to, that controversy has made, has caused the investors to learn away from this country to go to, to her country, to invest there. And they are well welcomed. Because of the challenges that we are having as a nation, that over taxation, over taxing of our people, because even the investors cannot be able to sustain the employee, to pay the taxes, yet they pay, they used to pay NTIF also, and other expenses. But now, as he said, the president might be, is not bad, but the people around him, they are misadvicing him to take the long direction because as a president, you have to see, to protect your country, to protect your, your citizen, but not to victimize them. And you should listen to them because they are the majority, they are the taxpayers. These are the people that have voted for him to become the president. It should be, what he does, should be for the best interests of the people of Kenya, but not about what those people who are, who are hardliners, for instance, for, right now, they have a talk, the opposition in Kenya, but on his side, there are people who are hardliners regarding the talks, which we are, which I want to congratulate them because they have accepted to talk for the best interests of the country, from both side, the opposition as a Mio and Kenyak ones, although they have not agreed, but they are giving the conditions, but not, no, not power sharing, but they have accepted, they want to talk for the best interests of the, because we don't want to lose Kenyans through the most tuition, we want the, we want them to address the high cost of living, we want them to see this nation going to the light direction. So if those people around him, they are going to mis-defice him, to have attacks people in order to get money to manage the country, to run the country, because you cannot build the nation, do an overnight, you have, it's a process. Rome was not built in a day. Yeah, so you have to, for the procedure, a process in order to make success. So if he consider the will of the Kenyans, at this time, it will be in the right track, but if they are going to push and to impose people to pay the tax because they have the power, they have everything, they have the machinery to do so, I think that government, everybody will not be, will not like that government to be away from that government and will not be respected because the people will further, will treat them as if they are the enemy of the people, even the members of parliament who pass those bills, finance bills, even in the public, coming to interact with the members of the public, they will continue to experience hostility from the members of the public, you know the crowd and we know how the people, the feelings and the temperature of the people are not happy because they are not respected because of the taxpayer, but they are being pushed to be by force, unhand. So that's a problem that the Kenyans once have, but if they want to change, they have a time to do so. We're giving them time. Now what we don't have is time, so just one more, just clarify, sorry, the three judges, three judge bench rather that is going to handle the finance act at the Supreme Court, the highest court of the land is Lawrence Bukambi, David Majanja and Christine Meoli. All right, so now as we come to a close, I want to try and bring these two points home. So like you said, they have agreed to talk or the president in his speech yesterday did say he's willing to talk, have converse Haitian with the opposition, but he stated three things he will not be talking about. He will not be talking about handshake. He will not be talking about the cost of living because apparently we start capping it at where it all begins at the farmers, at the farm rather with the farmers. Yes. So that's why he explains he has cut the price of fertilizer or subsidized it in a way. I'm not quite sure if I can call the subsidies, but he has done something on the ground, the grassroots level so that the domino effect will come to the actual cost of food. I don't know how sustainable that is, but it sounds like a start. You know, you can't always be saying he's not doing anything or he's not doing, or he's doing something wrong. The third thing he said he will not talk about is the opening of servers. I'm a choganeo story. We move on kindly. Let's not stop politicking and start thinking about the development of the country. Now I did want to touch on one international story, and that is Niger. Guys, Niger, as of I wouldn't say late July, there was a coup. Yeah, Africans. I don't know why we like to... Is it violence in our nature or we know? What's the problem? I personally validate whatever is happening. You do it now. All right. Let me tell you someone else was validating. One minute, guys. I am winding up. Sorry. Kindly. So we have Mali and Burkina Faso. These are two other nations that have led by generals who also seized power forcefully have stated that any military intervention would be seen as a declaration of war. So the coup, the coup, I'm hungry. The coup was launched in late July when Mohammed Banzoum, that is the current president, was seized by his presidential guard and Abdul Hamanet, he is the head of the guard named as the new leader. So now we have bodies like Aqours. And they have actually given the Niger, the particular leaders who have taken over the country, a deadline to just stop. Not talking, just stop. Relinquish power. Now, the current chairman is Bola Tinobu, who is the current Nigerian president, but he has no military experience. Where do you see this going in a sentence or two? Okay. Let me just call it the final stages of African decolonization. Wow. And that is why I'll say that I am in full support of what is happening in West Africa. If you listen to what President Traore of Burkina Faso, the current leader now, who came in after Aqours, he said that there is no way Africa can be, can have a lot of wealth, yet we are the poorest. I think you can connect that kind of irony. So I tend to believe that in every once in a while, there is that one person who is born who will alter the trajectory of that particular sphere of area where he is situated. And that is why we are having very strong leaders coming up from the West, from West Africa. And they are trying to reawaken that African spirit that, you know, we need to protect and defend ourselves. This is our land. We cannot be living in, you know, we cannot be staying here in Africa, in this particular country. Like, for example, let's say Burkina Faso, yet our minerals, the profits that come from our minerals, they are being enjoyed by other people. So we need to protect and defend our country. That is what is happening. Or even worse, now we import cereals and things like that, and we are such a rich continent. Final stages of decolonization. Your thoughts in two sentences, please. Okay. Okay, what happened in West Africa? I think it's sort of the challenges that Africans are having. And also the cost of living, high cost of living. And also the management of the resources that we have in Africa. At the same time, the bad leadership that has caused the, like Nega, military intervention to overthrow the, the regime that was there. But I think we as Africans, it's good to listen to the people and to face the challenges that we have, we as Africans. And by providing the good leadership, the leadership that is good, is providing solutions for our people. Because what we had, it seems that there's a problem in that country. The government has failed to manage. The problem that has continued to excel. And yet, people are suffering. Maybe people are dying. But the way we experienced the mandamano, that the protesters and the police, the police are killing the demonstrators. Such a crisis can cause a lot of problems. Because the nation is divided. All right. Thank you. I have to stop you right there. I am being told we do not have any more time, but I have really enjoyed this conversation. I really think we should have just our own shows, you know? Just Kandoya. And when, like just after, I don't know, we just organized because, yeah, I like to hear the voices of the youth and the people on the ground. Thank you once again, gentlemen, for making time for us. Thank you for giving us your thoughts. You thank you for staying on. And if you ever, ever want to contribute to the conversation, you know what to do at Y-5-4 on Facebook, Y-2-5-4 channel on X, Y-2-5-4 underscore channel on the ground, and those other wonderful platforms. Hashtag of the day is one in the morning. My name is Valentine. Please stay tuned. We're not done with you yet.