A Norseman should value his honor over his life. Vinland Saga is set in a ruthless period of time where physical strength or power, where one's blood, can take you anywhere and grant you the ability to be anybody and do anything. The most violent, the most powerful win. This is a period in time when a man's pride and honor are more valuable than anything. A time where war is everything. It's a period where a father will teach his son how to fight and how to wield a weapon and he will see his son off to war, proud of the fathers, the brothers, and the sons that his son will kill. In this story, the glorification of war has touched every corner of Europe, even the secluded Iceland. In the year 1002, as we follow a young Thorfinn back in Iceland, the young men still dream of battle and children here still run around with their wooden swords pretending to be warriors, aspiring to kill their enemies. The Valhalla is the reward for those who die in battle, a reward reserved for men and only for warriors. When it's announced that they will be going to war, they celebrate, as if they've been waiting their whole lives for this moment, and they have.  Even in these early chapters is no different, he is one of the many victims of this romanticization of war. As a boy, he even criticizes his ancestors for running away from it. The way Thorfinn sees the world and responds to its many trials and tribulations is that of a child who has grown up in this culture. He gets angry and aggressive when play fighting amongst his age mates. The other adults are impressed when he breaks one of the other kids arms, a born warrior they call him, because he has his father's blood.  So much so that he sneaks onto his father's ship as they head into what he believes will be one of the greatest battles he has dreamed of. Thorfinn is but a product of his surroundings. Once our protagonist sees the great Thorfinn's die unfairly at 6 years old, he responds as any child who dreams of war could. He vows to avenge his father and he spends the next 11 years of his life wholly entrenched in his quest for vengeance. He throws away any and all lessons that Thorfinn instilled into him and disregards the family he left behind. Eyes have a great significance in this story, and when Thorfinn's father is taken down by Oshelot, his eyes become one of a man, though only a boy, with hate in his heart. Eyes that resemble Oshelot. Whether it was his father's lingering voice that spoke to him as it did in the first chapter or just his lust for revenge blinding him to anything other than his goal, Thorfinn wasn't as bad as the other Vikings, but he wasn't a good person either. In one of Thorfinn's first raids, when he is injured on English soil, the young warrior gets nursed back to health by English farmers, and an old lady saves him from local soldiers. As compensation, he warns them about the incoming Vikings, as he burns a nearby shack to signal them. When the farmers don't leave, and Thorfinn sees the old lady again, his look is one of great remorse. This Thorfinn hasn't entirely changed yet, because in that moment his eyes revert to how they were when he was just a child.  Here Thorfinn is only ten years old, and he has chosen this cruel life, as the men behind him grin on their way to pillage and kill. Thorfinn then takes a breath, and then his eyes mature once again. They regain that hateful look. I think this was the moment when he flushed any sense of morality that he had down the drain. He then joins the Vikings in their pillaging. It's what he must do to avenge his father, to regain his father's honor at ten years old. He wasn't as bad as the other Vikings, but still he killed innocents and pillaged their homes. He didn't partake in any of the sexual assault that the Vikings did, but he still turned a blind eye to it all. There wasn't any joy in his conquest, unlike Oshalad's band, and yet he continued to follow them because he was so laser focused on his goal. Thorfinn would do anything and ignore any deed, no matter how vile, if it meant being one step closer to killing Oshalad. In the second chapter, the leader of the Vikings says that everyone is a slave to something. And in that very chapter, a slave speaks to Thorfinn, sensing that he and her are alike, given his situation. Thorfinn refutes this idea. He calls himself a free man, but the boy has no ideals, no values, and no motives beyond his current goal. Thorfinn has become a slave to vengeance, and Oshalad holds his chain. Oshalad's relationship with Thorfinn is so interesting in this story, as he is such a massive part of Thorfinn's life, and so it makes Oshalad's relationship with the audience in this story rather unique.  He has wiped out entire villages of innocent people. His men do awful, terrible things. They are terrible people.  And despite it all, Oshalad becomes hard to hate, considering his charm, his charisma, his intelligence. It feels so wrong to say it, but Oshalad becomes a father figure to Thorfinn, no matter how badly we want to refute that idea for Thorfinn's sake, and how badly Thorfinn himself refutes that idea. In Ragnarok, Thorfinn dreams of his fallen father, who asks him to protect his sister and mother. Thor is also asked him to give up on this quest for revenge, asking his son if he thinks this quest makes him happy. The young warrior wakes up and sees his bandmates forcing themselves on a captured girl, and he looks down on them, but does nothing. In the episode before this, he mentions how he hates war. Subconsciously or consciously I'd argue, there is a part of Thorfinn that knows what he is doing is senseless, because it's been 11 years and he hasn't gotten any closer to taking Oshalad down, but at the same time it's been 11 years. He can't just walk away. He saw his father as a hero, Thor's the troll, and he died in a way that was so unfair and dishonorable. Thor's won the duel, and still he died. For Thorfinn, what would that say of him if he just lets his father's killer roam free, knowing he had a chance to avenge it? Oshalad understands this, and he uses it to his advantage, as mentioned, but he does show Thorfinn a level of respect that he doesn't show anyone other than Bjorn. Oshalad repeatedly says how he hates the Vikings, he hates Norsemen, but with Thorfinn, he lectures the boy about history, and he subtly informs him about what he is after. In critical moments, he even trusts Thorfinn, like how he entrusts the young warrior to look after Prince Canood. When it's time to fight Thorkel, he nurses the boy back to health while coging him against the giant. When Oshalad fights his former Viking comrade, Thorfinn aids him without question. The leader of the Vikings doesn't hate Thorfinn the way he hates all Norsemen, because Oshalad never hated Thor's either. In fact, in their sole encounter, Oshalad recognizes Thor's ideals and he respects it immensely. Sure he might have said he was joking about Thor's leading his band, but there was undoubtedly some truth to it. I think Thor's was a man that he wished he could have been, and after their duel, he tells the troll that he acknowledges him. He respects his wishes, and he leaves the boat.  Oshalad, after a few years of worrying that he would actually be killed in his sleep as he did to his father, slowly came to understand that Thorfinn truly is the son of Thor's, with the potential to change. And a part of that was the fact that Thorfinn sought out a level of honor in revenge. He says he wants to take Oshalad down in a fair duel. That was his goal, as if there was any honor shown to Thor's when he was shot down. Oshalad recognized Thorfinn's soft streak and tried to use it to stray the boy off this path. But no matter how many times he lost to the Viking, no matter how many visits from Thor's and his dreams, nothing could stray him off this path. Not even a reunion with Leaf Ericsson, who had been searching for Thorfinn for the past decade, could talk some sense into it. Thorfinn instead continues to choose rage, allowing it to hack away at his memory and his morality. Only a child when he lost his father, he was beginning to lose his father's guidance as well. And as Thorfinn points it out, he is embarrassed by it. Embarrassed that he has spent the last 11 years going against every word and action his father taught him, because it only got in the way of his anger and hatred. And as Thorfinn says, he wasted those precious years. Thorfinn died staying true to his philosophy, believing that he left a lasting message for himself and his own beliefs and for his son that his actions did. And yet Thorfinn has thrown it all away and when Thorfinn detects this, it triggers the young warrior. There is nothing inside of him but a waning fury. He has no way of living up to Thor's and yet he feels like revenge is the only way at this point that he can truly honor his father and make him proud. But Thorfinn can't just go back home now. He hasn't done enough, he says.  Masculinity plays a big part in this society and the way it has been shaped in the Norse world, what does it say of him as a man? As Thorfinn's only son, if he comes home not having restored the honor of their family, the only way his culture has taught him how. He will be branded a coward, someone who ran away, the same way he ridiculed his ancestors when he was just a child. Moreover will Helga and Ylva, will they be proud of the man they see, a man who's killed and pillaged and plundered along with the most savage vikings? And all for what? And while Thorfinn continues on this path with no end in sight, it becomes a bit staggering when you juxtapose Thorfinn's lack of growth with Canute's progress. Canute now has the eyes of a changed man.  He now has the same pitying regard of those who seek a better life. Where Thorfinn only searches for revenge, Canute is offered vengeance by Oshelad for killing his father figure Ragnar and yet Canute declines. And we see where their paths diverge. We see how alike and yet different they are. Regardless Thorfinn marches on, he then takes on Oshelad in what would be their final duel, the most one-sided and heartbreaking one. Coming off Bjorn's death generated a certain level of anger for Oshelad and now Thorfinn is here demanding another duel. Without his weapon Oshelad embarrasses Thorfinn and finally tells him about his past and about his own personal desire for vengeance.   Oshelad explains to Thorfinn what real hatred looks like. It isn't respect, it isn't obedience, it isn't honor among warriors like Thorfinn believes it to be. There is no honor in hatred and vengeance, it is cold-hearted, calculated and ruthless. Just like how Oshelad planned it and killed his father in two years. Oshelad has been around for 11, Oshelad tells him and shows him in their duel that they are not the same, that they are not built the same. Essentially he is telling Thorfinn to give up on his quest. Oshelad doesn't know what it's like to have a sister and a father who love him, he doesn't know what it's like to have a community working together to care for each other. Oshelad parallels Thorfinn but he lives as a cautionary tale. They both desire nothing more than revenge but Oshelad was never able to move on past killing his father. He could never put those nights when his mother yearned for King Artorius to return behind him. He just couldn't do it because that was all he knew. He didn't have anybody to tell him to become a true warrior, to tell him he had no enemies. For Oshelad, everyone was his enemy and he demonstrates that when forced to choose between Wales, his home, his mother and Knut, he cuts the king down and he yells at Thorfinn to stay back and allows Knut to kill him. For political reasons of course, but also to free Thorfinn of his burden. I think he makes a conscious choice to try and steer Thorfinn whom he sees so much of himself to a different path. Oshelad took his vengeance away to ensure that this kid who's had the privilege of being the son of the Great Thors doesn't become like him. Maybe out of respect for the troll, maybe he felt sorry for Thorfinn. People never know, now there was truly nothing for him. More than the fact that this hatred has brought Thorfinn nothing, it's that it is so taxing to hate someone to the level that Thorfinn did, for as long as he did. Every morning, every night, every waking moment is spent dedicating so much of himself to entering that state of mind. Eleven years, rage has boiled inside him, now gone in a few seconds, and couple that with the conflicting emotions that Thorfinn has developed towards Oshelad, he's so confused and lost. Thorfinn has come to respect and even see Oshelad as a father figure. He is just a kid who needed guidance, and he got it in the form of this evil, terrible man. For the second time, he's lost a father figure and he could do nothing about it. And to Thors, he now has nothing to honor him by, nothing to help his soul rest. We know that eyes are symbolic in this story. Eyes that rage, eyes that pity others, innocent eyes, look at Thorfinn's eyes in this panel, as he watches the reason for his existence slowly bleed out.  No.  There's so many things in this moment. His identity has become synonymous with vengeance, now he has lost it. Thorfinn has become a man with nothing inside, and he's realized that he's forsaken his father's ideals for a fruitless quest. For his crimes against the prince, Thorfinn becomes a slave and how he is depicted here gives us an idea of how much he's changed. Thorfinn has always been small, but as a slave his stature is even more diminished. He's lost a ton of weight, he's been getting crumbs of bread for lunch, and he is so apathetic to his own existence that he won't even ask for more. He's so different now, he used to be so vulgar. As a viking, he took what he wanted and he only did what benefited him. A slave to no one, he said. Now a lifeless man going through the motions, a man who doesn't even desire freedom. He doesn't even want to go home. Hell. Thorfinn hasn't been his home for over a decade. He has no home. Thorfinn says something that enslaved people often feel in this series, that some of them say. What's so great about living? Thorfinn asks, what does he have to look forward to?  And Thor's words of wisdom now barely reaches memory after ten years of anger. He doesn't feel worthy of Thor's words now. He is nothing.  Though as his body reacts to snake, he opens up the possibility of having a subconscious desire to live, and he is now forced to investigate that through the life that he now lives for the first time since becoming a slave. Potter shows him great kindness. Einar continues to treat Thorfinn kindly despite his hatred for warriors.  These acts are enough for Thorfinn to consider what he gains by living. The fact that Einar has been enslaved his whole life, what good has life given him, and yet he wants to live. He desires freedom. He is still kind. Einar is able to move past it all. Why? But it's not as easy for Thorfinn. Part of his apathy to his new life is that he hates himself. Thorfinn now despises himself for what he has done in the past decade, and for what he had left behind. I think he despises himself for not being able to hate Ashelad anymore. I think Thorfinn still holds on to some ideals of the Norsemen, because that would make him a coward, right, that he doesn't hate the man who killed his father anymore. He's incredibly, incredibly self-loathing. Out on the fact that he is good at nothing other than battle, Thorfinn simply can't see himself as a man with any value. Even after a few months of searching for a will to live for a reason, Thorfinn remains empty. It's been so long that he questions his ability to change, to be reborn. When their wheat gets destroyed, Thorfinn can't bring himself to anger because he feels like he has no right to anger. And in a sense, he is correct. He was the one who spent the last decade of his life looting and pillaging and destroying things that it not belonged to him. He feels like this is deserved, and he also feels that he has no right to any positive emotions or feelings of retribution. As he says it, he is an empty man. Circle tells him, the good part about being empty is that he can fill himself with anything. He has the liberty of choosing the type of man he will be. This is the first step to Thorfinn's true battle. Can he allow himself to be something else? Can he allow himself to begin feeling once again? To fill himself with emotion. But just as he is learning his way around the farm, he too is changing. Learning patience, finding direction. He too is regaining his purpose, his will to live. And what I absolutely adore about this story is that the first time he tries to take a meaningful step towards growth, he fails, because growth isn't linear. Thorfinn's relationship with violence is different than anyone else's. Thorfinn has relied on it for so many years. It has become his battery, his fuel, it has caused so much harm to him and his perception of himself. Going to punch the farmhand accomplished nothing, it only brought him back to the world that he was comfortable in. But the fact that his mind is taking him to this place means that he is feeling guilty, it means that he is feeling something. And the imagery here is so powerful, it's incredibly horrifying, as souls pull Thorfinn back into the world that he left. He doesn't remember them, but they remember him. Each and every one of them, but it's the people like the old lady who combed his hair and nursed him back to health and saved him. The people that he's wrong the most are the people that he needs to satisfy. Those are the type of ghosts that he needs to appease. And the one ghost he does remember is the man who's been at the center of his life for the past decade or so. Oshelot tells Thorfinn that he now has to accept what he's done, he has no choice, and he will have to carry these souls and make it up to them. He will have to atone. He will carry this weight for the rest of his life, and the best he can do is bring them to a place where they can finally rest. And in the panel later on, in this image of the souls, hundreds of them actively tugging on his shirt, pulling his arms down, is one of my favorite panels of the entire series. Because it's such a powerful illustration of how heavy this burden is, and how even one more death, even one more soul would be too much, he says, but he has to carry them with him, everywhere he goes. And while yes, Thorfinn fears for his life here, his most prevalent emotion is regret. Thorfinn is fully sobbing here, he truly feels for them. Fight your true battle, Oshelot urges him. His true battle is to never forget that place, that nightmare, and to never, ever return. Your true battle is overcoming himself. It's so difficult to look past an entire society, telling you what is right and wrong, and glorifying these toxic, violating ideals. That's the battle that Thor is one, and it's the battle that Oshelot was quite aware of, but could never move on from his own past, and his own nature. Now he finally understands his father. What makes a true warrior? He's been asked that by Thorkl. He knows now that a true warrior is not made through the spoils of war. A true warrior is not made through the bloodshed of battle. A true warrior is not defined by their strength or their ability. A true warrior battles man's arrogance and pride and propensity for violence, not with a sword, but with kindness and patience. A true warrior only fights to protect, and they don't kill, and they are strong enough to walk away.  Knowing he had something bigger to protect, something more important, Thor's chose love over pride and honor. That is what being a true warrior is. After these chapters, I finally took notice of how Thorphin's face had changed, especially the way he's drawn in this panel. This is the first time we ever see Thorphin genuinely smile, genuinely laugh, 73 chapters in. Thorphin the Viking's face was so burdened.  But now, just like Einar calls him a baby for discovering so much of life for the first time, his face reflects his newfound purpose.  And they aren't the empty eyes of a man who is nothing. If finally, he now has the eyes of his father, eyes with an earnest desire to live. But what makes Thorphin's road to redemption so compelling is that he doesn't just stop here. It isn't enough to simply throw down my sword, he says. Atonement is not just words and a change of heart, those are good starting points and half the battle is won by desiring change. But the second half is even more challenging, Thorphin says that a man must raise more grain than he has trampled in his life. Atonement requires action, and it finally all comes together when he comforts Arnaid with the promises of Vinland. It's at that moment when he decides to make it his life goal to make Vinland a reality. He promised the souls a place where they can go to rest. He promised Arnaid a place where she would have a desire to live. This brand of non-violence that Thorphin endorses, it's radical and it's outlandish, often times unreasonable. Einar tells him that there is no place in this world without violence, that it's unrealistic. Thorphin himself knows it's unrealistic. But again, we go back to what Thorphin has seen, to the reason he is so vehemently against violence, and it's those bodies that pull on his shirt, those souls that plague his sleep every single night he still wakes up yelling, even after he's changed. He's so against violence because of what he has done.  Not one more death, he's so repulsed by it, he's so tired of death. And his ideals are challenged constantly. He's put in compromising positions, like when he faces down Knut's army, but to prove his dedication, he withstands 100 blows. When he meets with Knut, he tells him that he will run away. Though he has been absolutely pummeled, the man who hit him is not his enemy. Thorphin believes that peace cannot be brokered through war, that the peace he seeks is not just a place without violence.  It is a place where nobody has to carry the burdens of hundreds of souls haunting them. Because he knows that the souls weigh you down. He knows that not everyone is as lucky as he is to have escaped that place. Thorphin's brand of peace and pacifism ensures that that place will never exist. And Thorphin's brand of peace ensures that everyone will have a desire to live. And that no one will question why they are alive. Vinland is a place where anyone and everyone can learn what the reason to live is. It's love, family, fun. These are the pillars to life that so many in their world have yet to experience. Where so many have suffered and have lost. Our Nade sought out a reason to keep on living. The slave back in the third chapter sought out a reason to keep on living. Both times they were soothed by the visions of Vinland, a place where they don't need to suffer. That is what life is supposed to be. Vinland's saga is set in the most brutal period of history and yet it is a story about love, forgiveness, redemption, and kindness. A story of resilience. This is the story of a man who has accepted the harm he's done, he's not shied away from it, and now he finally understands that the thing he sought out most, violence and the glory of war, is the very thing that poisons their world. Thorphin doesn't ever ask anyone to forget his past, he makes it known time and again the man he was. There are people in the story that make him never forget it, that keep him accountable, but he blinds people with his goodness and radiance. When it came time to choose who Thorphin was going to be, he has chosen what is considered weakness and cowardice in this world. He has tossed his pride aside and he has chosen a path filled with incredible hardships. Thorphin understands that choosing love and empathy is the most difficult path. Violence is the easiest, but those who can put their pride to the side, who can walk away, who can be loving and kind, that is the mark of the truly strong. He has finally understood why there is no one he needs to hurt. When Leif and Thorphin reunite for the second time here on Kettle's farm, Thorphin refuses to leave Arnaid and the fate of the farm in the hands of soldiers. He gives up his chance at freedom to save another. And to it, Leif tells Thorphin that he is a man now, fully grown. Men are not made through the fires of war and violence. They are not made when they have killed another. Men are made when they choose to help those in need. Men are made when they choose to live as kind men. Thorphin has now made it his life's mission to create a place where no power can reach. A place no slaver knows. Far to the west, across the great sea, and far, far beyond the horizon. This is the road to true redemption.


processes of assessment through the national improvement framework are important because they give us the information that we need to help us to make those decisions. However, they in themselves or new money do not guarantee ultimate success. They are enablers and it is people or teachers who will make that real difference. The report suggested that success lies in what it described as this middle area of networking and collaboration, the engagement amongst professionals up and down the country to bring about these transformational changes. We will rely heavily on our teaching profession to drive us forward, but if successful, Scotland will be leading the world in this area. I also mentioned the case of a young woman in Pawsall Park and my colleague Bob Doris's Glasgow constituency, who had achieved all the qualifications for medical school, but she did not get into any of Scotland's universities. That is a different issue, Presiding Officer, and it is about equality of access even when you attain the qualifications that are required. Closing the attainment gap is at the target, but ensuring equality of access immediately after that is essential for students like that young woman from Pawsall Park and any other similar communities like it. Hopefully, our new commissioner for fair access will take a close look at this. To support the whole effort on attainment, we have to start earlier than school, and the Government's proposals for 30 hours per week free childcare for every three and four-year-old and those vulnerable two-year-olds is vital. There are those who say that, by the time many youngsters are in early primary school, the battle for attainment parity at secondary school has already been lost. We know the reasons why deprivation, family instability, access to resources, encouragement and support all make it very difficult for youngsters to keep pace with some of their peers. That intervention will be helpful in providing that essential nature and support, getting that good start. It has the benefit to freeing up parents to get back into work, so important in the success of the Norwegian economy that was mentioned by my new colleague, Gillian Martin. The third crucial area for me, Presiding Officer, is in relation to our new powers and social security and welfare. For too long now, we have heard story after story about the disgraceful and inhumane treatment that is meted out to those people who are disadvantaged or have disabilities. A country's social security system is meant to protect people from further disadvantage in poverty, not to set out to make it worse and to add punishment and further injury to people's self-esteem. I am delighted that the Scottish Government will abolish the bedroom tax, surely the most graceful of public policies to have been introduced by the UK Government in recent years, although there are several other candidates for that accolade. At the end of this session, what progress do we expect to see and to have been achieved? Educational attainment across Scotland is pretty much even. Access and opportunity are balanced, and young people from every community in Scotland are looking forward to fulfilling their dreams, whatever they may be. Youngsters get enough to a great start in life and not being left behind as a result of poverty. It is a tall order, but with the support and hard work of everyone in this chamber, I am sure that we can make that happen and take Scotland forward to a better place. We now move to closing speeches, and I call on Ian Gray for around nine minutes, Mr Gray. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Like every other speaker, I want you to know that I can hardly contain my admiration for you and your colleagues and will be seeking your forbearance regularly in return. Those taking Scotland forward debates are a regular parliamentary occurrence, but this one has certainly been unique in the number of first speeches that we have heard. Let me begin by congratulating all those new colleagues who have chosen to dive in at the deep end yesterday and today. There have been too many to list, and it is a bit invidious to pick one or two out, but I will do that anyway. I thought that Richard Leonard yesterday gave a tremendous first speech—pride in place, passion and politics—all that a first speech should have, although I did lose the sweepstake on how long it would take him to, quote, cure hard day. He got there even quicker than I thought he would. Rona Mackay and Fulton MacGregor, I think, were brave enough to make substantive and important contributions on a very controversial issue, the named person. From the Tory benches, there was Annie Wells, not just a maiden speech, an M&S maiden speech. That was particularly moved when she spoke of her dream coming true in Glasgow. I had that same experience, too, around 4.45 last Saturday afternoon. I have to say, though, it was lovely to hear some of the old lags back to living down to our expectations, as usual. From Stuart Stevenson, Otto Diedat extraordinaire, to Mr Adam, who gave his maiden speech singing the praises of Paisley, the maiden speech has been given continuously for the past five years, with occasional breaks for sleep sustenance and re-election, so someone must be listening to you, Mr Adam. That is the thing about taking Scotland forward debates, of course. They follow and reflect an election. I have fought a lot of elections and I am still surprised by the way in which somehow the electorate, through their individual acts of democracy, seems to get what they collectively wanted. The wisdom of crowds, perhaps, does not always suit me, though. The people have spoken, as that American senator famously said, the bastards. I cannot deny that the electorate— Mr Ray, I can see why you asked for forbearance, but that is it used up. I do apologise. I cannot deny that the electorate a few weeks ago wanted Nicola Sturgeon to be First Minister, but nor can she ignore that they quite deliberately removed her majority in this Parliament. Her manifesto may have been, as she said, a successful job application, but it cannot simply become, as she claimed, the blueprint for delivery. I know that the First Minister tried to demonstrate that she has taken ideas from other parties, a Minister for Mental Health, from the Lib Dems, young carers allowance, from the Greens, a warm homes act from us, but Mr Rennie was right yesterday when he said that that is not enough. The First Minister should not mistake policy kleptomania for political consensus building. That is about behaving differently every day of the next five years, not about half an hour spent cutting and pasting from other manifestos. The trouble is that we have heard consensus talk before. Even five years ago, firming a majority Government, her predecessor assured us that he had no monopoly of wisdom. Alas, that turned out to be simply a flourish of his speechwriters—pen, not a change of heart at all. This First Minister must do better, and she should start with austerity and the cuts. A year ago, Nicola Sturgeon was all about stopping austerity cuts. As Kezia Dugdale pointed out, her MPs in Westminster are still all about stopping austerity cuts. The First Minister did say that there is cross-party opposition in this Parliament to unfair or regressive Westminster policies such as continued austerity. In this Parliament, too, there is a progressive alliance against continued austerity cuts. The First Minister made no mention of that because she is not part of it. She remains a founder member of the new taxpayers' alliance with the Tories. The First Minister may have ignored the cuts, but others did not. Neil Findlay and Alex Rowley spoke powerfully of the impact on councils, staff and communities that they serve. Others spoke of the 4,000 fewer teachers, 152,000 fewer college students and the shortfall of GPs. We cannot ignore that reality. The First Minister won applause from her colleagues when she talked about seizing the precious opportunity to make real improvements for this and future generations. The new power of this Parliament to stop the cuts is that opportunity, and she has not seized it but rather sidestepped it. We agree with all the fine words that the First Minister and others said about education as her number one priority. Kezia Dugdale quoted GFK on that. Let me quote Malala Yousafzai if she knows something about the importance of education. She said, There are many problems, but I think that there is a solution to all those problems. It is just one and it is education. However, the words that the First Minister had to say and did not are, we will protect education budgets and reverse the cuts of the past five years. I review if I education resources are directed might be welcome. Even Joe McAlpine admitted that the attainment challenge funding has been misdirected, but it cannot be a substitute for making sure that there are enough resources in the budget in the first place. A council of education advisers, a council of education advisers meeting in Bute House might be an interesting and worthwhile idea, but it is no substitute for more teachers in our schools. A major summit on raising attainment will be an interesting day, I am sure, but it will be no substitute for certain the problems that we have right now with new national exams, teacher shortages or excessive teacher workload, which I am afraid Mr Swinney's announcement today has not convinced teachers. I am grateful to Mr Gray for giving me a week. Mr Gray has marsaled an argument whereby the Government has got to engage and listen, and we accept that. He has then criticised us for having a summit on education in which we intend to engage and listen. Can Mr Gray give us some hope that he may have learned some lessons from the election before he concludes his speech? Ian Gray Perhaps Mr Swinney could learn the lesson that to say that a summit is not the answer or a substitute for addressing other problems is not to criticise it and perhaps he indeed should demonstrate that he intends to listen. I am from Edinburgh, and in Edinburgh we have or used to have a saying that starts off our quote. It then turns quite unparliamentary, but it warns against focusing on appearance while neglecting the fundamentals. That is why Willie Rennie was right yesterday when he criticised the First Minister's statement for being full of framework summits, strategies, reviews, plans and consultations, but short on the fundamentals. In truth, the statement had the feel of a Government groping to discern a way to take Scotland forward in the darkness left by previous Governments, as if they had not been the Government for the past nine years. It should have the courage, the boldness, to grasp the way forward. It is right here around them, a Parliament with the power to end austerity, to reinvest in our future again to get those fundamentals right. A real progressive alliance to create the education system that we all want, the health service that we all need, the welfare system that dignity of our citizens does deserve. To really transform Scotland, not just talk about it, meet about it or plan about it, but to do it, as Anas Sarwar quoted, if not now, when? I add my congratulations to the Presiding Officer's team and to congratulate all the new members of Parliament right across the political spectrum for excellent speeches and that Mr Gray has eloquently described some of their content. It is good to see Mr Gray back in the education role, but I have to say that the view is much better from those benches than it was from the winds over there. When opening the debate yesterday, the First Minister said that she wanted to build progressive alliances with other parties so that the greater good of Scotland can benefit from good ideas across the chamber. Likewise, in announcing her commission of experts on international education, she said that she wants policies that have a proven track record. As Ruth Davidson said in her speech, we intend to hold the First Minister to do just that. Indeed, many political commentators, when writing about the recent election, said that the most successful message that had come from the Scottish Conservatives was the desire in Scotland to have a strong opposition—an opposition that is forensic in its scrutiny of government policy, supporting where there is a clear advantage for Scotland's welfare and opposing where the Government has clearly got things wrong, because the voters did send out a very clear message that they want better quality opposition, and they expect that opposition to be based on two things—good quality facts and evidence—and on constructive, credible and coherent policy alternatives. I hope that the Scottish National Party's actions will match the First Minister's words, because much of political history shows that Governments are often at their best when there is effective opposition, and maybe not just opposition from opposition parties, but within their own party, too. In terms of scrutiny, might I say something about that process in this Parliament? It is very clear that there is a growing consensus in the Parliament, most especially that the committee system is not functioning as well as it should be. Indeed, there is an argument that it makes for lazy politics. In the last Parliament, too often the debate preceding a committee or a chamber vote was sterile because the outcome of that vote was already predetermined. There was diminished incentive to prepare properly and to expose Government failings because the exercise was deemed to be pointless. That is surely not good for democracy, and it is not good for Government. I know that, Presiding Officers, you take that matter very seriously. It is important not just because of a good Government, but because all of us who have been elected to be in this place have more powers at our disposal than ever before. We are no longer simply in the business of debating how to spend the money that we are given, but now we must debate how it is raised as well. With that comes greater accountability, but also with much greater responsibility, and that is a good thing. The key priority must surely be how we deliver economic growth within Scotland. As Ruth Davidson rightly said, that will be the defining test within the finance and economy briefs, support for the Scottish Government when their policies are clearly designed to bring jobs and investment, economies of scale and tax policies that will encourage rather than deter people to do business in Scotland, but opposition when we believe that SNP policies will threaten growth. My colleague Murdo Fraser set out the key policies, a competitive tax system that ensures that Scotland does not find itself facing higher tax rates than the rest of the UK. Competitive business rates, which mean that there are incentives rather than barriers put in the way of people who want to invest in our high streets and our rural communities, and well-planned infrastructure projects that will deliver better economic integration and connectivity about which there is still much to be done. With that comes the responsibility to free up creativity and enterprise, not by attacking rural communities with punitive land reform or spending millions on an IT system that leaves our farmers struggling for their livelihood, not by attacking local authorities when they will not do the Scottish Government's bidding, and not by attacking our universities with new governance legislation that threatens their autonomy and their ability to attract cutting-edge research and development, because all of those are so detrimental to Scotland's best interests. Scotland can benefit so much from key industries when this Parliament works together to create a sound economy. In that respect, I am pleased that the Westminster Government is now showing a real willingness to listen to what we all believe is a compelling case for the reintroduction of post-study work visas. I hope that progress will be quick so that the work that is undertaken by Humza Yousaf and his cross-party committee can bear the fruit that is so desired by employers, colleges and universities. Despite the good news this week about inward investment, there are warnings from economic groups such as the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses about employment and about Scotland's growth rate lagging behind that of the rest of the UK. There are warnings, too, that politicians must not get mired in ideological warfare as they debate their tax policies but be fully focused on what works. We must always remind ourselves that it is not in this place where we create the jobs and investment, but it is here that we create the right economic circumstances for others to do so. It is so important that economic growth is on a base that is supporting our public services in the face of very significant demographic changes, which put huge pressures on welfare, on health and social care and, of course, on education. That is where I turn to now. May I warmly congratulate John Swinney on his appointment as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, a man who has already a very strong proven track record both at Holyrood and in Westminster, a man who has a reputation for honesty, top-class debating skills and considered dialogue, such a distinguished reputation that I had when I heard about his appointment to make a quick phone call to my former colleague Gavin Brown, who is much more experienced at me than dealing with Swinneyism. Here is what I was told. Liz, he said, is a very good appointment. He is easy to work with, he listens, he is generous in his praise, he is amusing, he is down to earth, and you will always know what is exactly in his budget, because the only thing you have to do is phone George Osborne. He is, said Mr Brown, a class act.  I hope that you really are listening today, and let me divide my comments on education into three parts. First, on what the priorities should be. Of course, that means putting the main focus on policies that will narrow the attainment gap. For us on this side of the chamber, we believe that nothing is more important than a better grounding in the three hours. That is why we have made a recommendation that more time has to be allocated to that in teacher training. Part of that equation is the early years, absolutely critical in terms of a child's development, but also in terms of affording everyone a better chance. We welcome the First Minister's comments in that respect, because this is not just about more hours of childcare for those who are most in need, but about taking up the call from parents and campaigners, such as fair funding for our kids, for much more radical reform so that there is more flexible and better quality childcare and a system that responds positively to parental choice. Another part of the equation in the early years is ensuring that there is better and proper support for teachers rather than cutting their numbers, including qualified nursery teachers—so it was good to hear yesterday that the First Minister will seek to reverse the cuts that our Government made previously. However, I also suggest that the same needs to be done for teachers who assist pupils with additional support needs. If that is done properly, we will address literacy and numeracy in the early years, and we will not have the same worries about widening access to college and university, because by that time it is too late. The Scottish Government made the point two days ago that we have much to learn from international education. I really hope that that genuinely means listening and acting upon what works best. One of the most interesting trends in international education is that success comes best when educational institutions have genuine autonomy and trust the professionals to lead and to get on with the job in hand. We are well aware that the First Minister has on her desk requests from some parents to have more diversity within the state sector, not forced or imposed but responsive to parental demand. If that means a desire to operate within the state sector, but not necessarily within local authority control, then so be it. The Scottish Conservatives want to see genuine devolution of power, not a national education service or a new network of quangos, so we look forward very much to participating in the summit on school reform, because there is undoubtedly a case for greater diversity in state education based on what works. When it comes to colleges and universities, I think that the challenge is as great as it is anywhere in education. The reports out this week that look at research funding, innovation and burst-free support and all the aspects of access do not actually paint a very happy picture. They all make plain the fact that significant injections of cash are required to sustain both our further and higher education sectors and whether the SNP likes it or not, that debate is going to happen in this Parliament and rightly so. Scotland can boast excellence in those sectors, but that will not continue unless there is more cash. It comes down to a stark choice between raising taxes, which some in this chamber want to do, but which we believe would seriously be detrimental to the rest of the economy, or raiding other budgets, which is exactly what has happened to colleges and which we will not find acceptable at all, or a graduate contribution. If universities are to be told that they must take 20 per cent of their intake from the most disadvantaged backgrounds without restricting access to other students, that means providing more places and much higher bursary support than is currently the case. May I finish my comments on fairness in education? Again, I mantra for the First Minister. I give you just three examples of where there isn't that fairness. Around half of Scotland's two-and-three-year-olds do not get the same level of nursery provision because their birthday happens to be in their own month. There is much weaker bursary support in Scotland. There might be a slight improvement, but we are still well beyond what is happening in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is increasing concern about subject choice and when some pupils have access to fewer examination courses in comparison to the rest of their peers. We believe that we have to be very bold. Radical in our approach to the earliest years, focus on the three Rs and the simpler, better and standardised testing, though not in primary one, Mr Swinney. It needs more financial support for teachers, especially those in early years and in support areas. It needs a reduction in the unnecessary paperwork burden on teachers so that they can get on with the job that they want to do. Yes, it means getting rid of the awful name person policy, which is not only deeply unpopular but increasingly unworkable—I think that I am in my last minute—it is unworkable in the mandatory basis that the SNP clearly is struggling to defend. Several new MSPs have said that this new parliament will be defined by whether it is able to get on and do the job that has been asked to do by the voters in Scotland. To do that, the First Minister will have to ensure that her actions match her rhetoric, and the Scottish Conservatives must keep our promise to the voters in Scotland to hold her to her word. Let's get on with the job in hand. I call John Swinney to pose the debate at Deputy First Minister if he could take us to five o'clock. It is a pleasure to be called on this debate by you, Deputy First Minister, and I welcome you to your post. Let me draw this debate to a conclusion with some reflections on the varied and excellent contributions that we have had in the debate. Some of the comments about first-time speeches were made yesterday by Derek Mackay. I won't repeat them today, but I will address some issues that arose in yesterday's debate, which I want to give clarity about today. First of all, to my colleague John McAlpine, I want to make clear that I will chair the South of Scotland Transport Summit. I will be there to keep a very close eye on Humza Yousaf in all that he is getting up to, but it will continue my association with the South of Scotland Alliance, which I look forward to that opportunity to taking forward. I comment on Jenny Gilruth's speech yesterday, which, from my portfolio point of view, was a tremendous speech to hear of an individual who has come through the education system in Scotland and has made an outstanding contribution to the education profession and demonstrated in her speech yesterday that she will make an outstanding contribution to Parliament. I look forward to being on the receiving end of that wisdom about the education system from an experienced practitioner on my own party's benches in Parliament in the course of the next parliamentary term. I say to Ash Denham that the issues that she raised today about widening access are central to the Government's agenda and our determination to ensure that we expand educational opportunity and enable young people to make a full and proper contribution to our society as a consequence of the investment that we get right in their educational experience. I also say to Ivan McKee, who made another outstanding first-time speech today, that the way in which he wove together the arguments about investing in education and skills with the necessity of ensuring that that supports the economic and business development agenda of the country was a very refreshing way of looking at the important challenges that we face about linking up important questions that will exist between different portfolios within Government and, of course, the tackling of inequality that Mr McKee talked about is central to the agenda of delivering higher economic growth within Scotland. Peter Chapman made a wide-ranging speech about issues in relation to the rural economy. I can assure him that Fergus Ewing will be looking very carefully at and engaging very closely with Mr Chapman and others on the issues in relation to the delivery of the common agricultural policy payment system and to ensure that we do everything that we can to support the interests of the farming community. However, I make the point gently to Mr Chapman that our efforts to protect the interests of the fishing and the farming communities of Scotland are not always greatly assisted by the actions and interventions of the United Kingdom Government. It will be helpful if Mr Chapman is going to perform a role in supporting the Scottish Government, as Richard Lochhead has done consistently for nine years and which I know Fergus Ewing will do in the years to come, to protect and to assert the interests of the farming and fishing communities within our wider discussions, which will be an important part of the agenda that we take forward. We had a large number of first-time speeches to Parliament today and I am not quite sure what is the correct terminology for the speech that Mike Rumbles delivered. Mike Rumbles is, of course, a member who has been in Parliament before. My dear late friend and colleague Margaret Ewing introduced her return speech to the House of Commons in 1987 as the speech—not a maiden speech but a retread speech. There certainly was a lot of retread about Mike Rumbles' speech. I realised, as I listened to Mr Rumbles, that his sense of self-awareness has not in any way improved in the years of his absence from Parliament. He funded to the Government front bench by his actions shall you know then. Without any sense that, by the actions of the Liberal Democrats in propping up a Conservative Government hell-bent on austerity, the Liberal Democrats might suffer as a consequence. I would be absolutely delighted to take that. Mike Rumbles would not agree that you have a record, a nine-year record to defend. That is not a new Government starting from scratch. However, you have a record that is pretty abysmal, as far as the farming community is concerned, a farmer's local government is concerned, and you need to change your tune. John Swinney? I am glad that I have demonstrated some generosity of spirit to Mr Rumbles in taking an intervention from him, which he refused to take from me earlier on. However, that will allow me to say to Mr Rumbles, because, as he thundered to me about by your actions shall you know then, Mr Rumbles made the point that, apparently, I had been taking a centralising agenda with local government, despite the fact that, when I came to office as the finance minister nine years ago, I liberated local government of £2 billion worth of ring fencing that was put in place by the Liberal Democrats when they were propping up the Labour Party. I simply also point out to Mr Rumbles that there has been an election that all the issues that he is raising have been tested on the hustings. The election result resulted in this party, the Scottish National Party, commanding a higher share of the vote than we commanded in the constituency ballot in 2011. I am well aware of the electoral arithmetic, and I will be coming on to the question of consensus in a moment. However, what I want to say to Mr Rumbles very directly is that he has to respect the fact that this Government has been elected with a mandate to govern, and that is precisely what we are going to do. There were a number of other contributions from Donald Cameron, who made the point about broadband and mobile, and that was made also by Rhoda Grant yesterday in the debate. Broadband connectivity is really a central commitment of the Scottish Government, and if we had left it all to the market, the precious market that the Conservative Party loves, the level of broadband connectivity in Scotland would have reached about 60 per cent, but under this Government's investment, the level of connectivity will get to 95 per cent. We are absolutely determined to increase the level of connectivity. We have given a commitment that that will be 100 per cent over the course of this parliamentary term, but we have to also, if we are accepting the lines of argument that are put forward to support the Government's proposition, accept them. The Conservative Party must accept that we have had to intervene to address the failures and the weaknesses of the market to enable us to deliver on that commitment to the people of Scotland, and that is an important part of our on-going commitment to the rural economy. Let me make a couple of remarks about the issues that have been raised on educational issues. I set out in my opening remarks specific steps that I have taken to reduce the workload of teachers. I have also published today a letter from the chief examiner of Scotland that makes it clear that if I had gone further in the changes that are proposed to be made today, I would have jeopardised the integrity of qualifications that are available to young people in Scotland. That is a piece of evidence that I have put in front of Parliament to ask Parliament and the wider community to accept that the Government is going to move as far and as fast as we possibly can do, but we cannot, in any circumstance, jeopardise the ability of young people to receive certificated qualifications. That would be folly if we were to go down that route. The second point that I want to make on education is on the point that Liz Smith made about the funding of higher education. Liz Smith made the point that the option was to raise tax or to ask for a graduate contribution, if there was any difference between those two particular propositions. The Conservatives are the brass neck to go around talking about low tax, but they want to increase the costs on individuals by graduate contributions prescription charges. That is not a low tax agenda, that is a misleading agenda that the Conservative party is putting on. Liz Smith. The cabinet secretary is confusing a very important point here. If you are going to raise the general level of taxation, that has a hugely detrimental effect on the entire economy. A graduate contribution is necessary to provide the additional funding into higher education and further education to allow Mr Swinney to do what he wants to do in terms of providing widened access and insist that colleges and universities have 20 per cent from the disadvantaged community. Liz Smith makes my point that there is no difference between a graduate tax and the issue of raising the general part of taxation, and the Government set out its agenda in that respect. A number of colleagues, Fulton MacGregor and Rona Mackay in particular on the Government side, Peter Chapman on the Conservative side have raised the issue of the named person. I want to thank Fulton MacGregor and Rona Mackay for the considered way in which they set out the arguments around the named person proposition. Liz Smith said in her contribution that the named person proposal was unworkable. That is not the case, because today it is working and working satisfactorily in various parts of Scotland, including in South Ayrshire, which is a council led by the Conservative Party. I simply put those points on the record to encourage us to have a more considered debate about the issue. We live in a country today where all of us are signed up to an agenda, which is about making sure that we do everything that we possibly can do to protect the wellbeing of our most vulnerable citizens in our country. That is absolutely central to this Government's agenda. That is why we believe that the named person proposition is the right way to proceed to ensure that we protect the interests of the most vulnerable citizens. I praise those same contributions that he has just mentioned in exactly the same terms. He also knows that, in taking the legislation through the named person policy, he was one in which those benches supported. Will he accept, though, that something has happened that many parents across Scotland have lost confidence in the implementation of that policy and that some measure has to be taken in order to try to redress that and to restore that confidence in a policy that we both supported at the time of legislation? John Swinney? I think that what has happened is that a very good idea with a very broad level of support in Parliament, widely supported in Parliament and enormously supported in the community, has been utterly misrepresented by the debate of the last few weeks. Where I agree with Mr Gray is that it is important to rebuild confidence in that concept, and I give him the assurance that one of my early priorities will be to do exactly that, because I believe in the policy and I believe that it is right and proper for the young people of Scotland, and I will do everything that I can to rebuild that confidence as we proceed in this debate. The other part of the debate related to the condition of the Scottish economy, and in this respect, the tone of the afternoon was set by Murdo Fraser. At one moment, I thought that Murdo Fraser was actually auditioning for a part in Dad's army to play his namesake, Private Fraser. We're all doomed. In the way in which Mr Fraser went through all of the issues about the—as my colleague Fergus Ewing, the rural economy secretary, made clear, there was not a glimmer of positivity or optimism in the contribution made by Murdo Fraser. He also had the nerve to suggest that the level of deindustrialisation taking place in Scotland today was unprecedented. Has he not forgotten that deindustrialisation presided over by the miserable Conservative Party in the 1980s? My colleague Ivan McKee made reference to the tremendous industrial heritage in his own constituency, the work of the Saracen foundry. However, the whole issue was brought to modern life by the contributions of Stuart McMillan in relation to the work that was done to protect and to enhance or to recover the Fergus Ewing's yard from closure, which is now thriving, restoring the tradition of shipbuilding to the lower Clyde, and the comments of the rural economy secretary in his intervention to Murdo Fraser about the saving of jobs in motherwell in the steel industry and the opening up of the prospect of a new future for the steel industry in Scotland. Richard Leonard made this point yesterday about industrial strategy. The Government has, at the heart of its economic strategy, the determination to deliver an industrial strategy that invests in the fabric of Scotland and in the employment and economic opportunities that flow as a consequence. I want to conclude my remarks by referring to three contributions that have been made today that, for me, capture the same and very significant point. There are contributions made by Mr Sawa, Ben Macpherson and Bruce Crawford. In his speech yesterday in Bruce Crawford, the first backbend speech in the debate yesterday, Bruce Crawford appealed to Parliament to think beyond the parameters of the election, to come into this Parliament in a spirit of goodwill and to try to find areas of common interest to advance, particularly as is relevant to my policy responsibilities, the future of Scottish education. That was echoed by Mr Sawa's comments today of the necessity—of us not—and I paraphrase Mr Sawa, but he essentially said, we do not just come here to complain, we come here to find common interest and solutions. People are perfectly entitled to come here to complain, but we also must work together to find common solutions and common successes. Ben Macpherson used the remarks of saying to Parliament that we came here, all of us, with a unifying hope of a better Scotland to be created. Those three contributions sum up what I think is a really important point for Parliament to reflect on as we consider the First Minister's policy programme as she outlined yesterday. As we look forward to how that can be delivered in the Scottish Parliament in the next five years, it is a challenge for us to recognise that the election has happened. The Parliament has been elected on the distribution of votes and seats that it has been elected upon. We recognise that we have to reach out beyond the 63 fine individuals that are on those benches—wonderful though they are—to find support in other benches to deliver the Government's programme, and we will do that. However, we also need the Opposition to engage constructively in a fashion determined to create a better Scotland, to look for areas in which we can create opportunities for people in Scotland to succeed, and that is no greater than in the challenges that I face in education, to close the attainment gap, to deliver equity and excellence for every one of the young people in Scotland. That is the driving mission and the definition of this parliamentary term, and the Government looks forward to taking forward its programme with energy and enthusiasm to deliver on that vision. I thank the cabinet secretary that concluded the debate on taking Scotland forward. We now move to the next item of business and its decision time. There is one question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion 190, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on Scotland's future in the European Union, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. Can I first of all act make sure that all members have their cards inserted, please? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. Members should cast their vote now. The result of the vote is as follows. Yes, 106. No, 8. There were three abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time.


When we think of computer animation, we inevitably think of Pixar. Though competitors like Dreamworks, Elimination Entertainment, and Time Warner definitely exist and put out successful entertaining movies, Pixar is the oldest, most highly awarded computer animation studio in the world, starting with their first feature, Toy Story, in 1995. Even after Disney acquired Pixar in 2006, they kept producing incredible films like Up, Brave, and Inside Out. But Pixar's success wasn't always inevitable. In honor of their 22nd feature film, Onward, it's a perfect time to tell Pixar's story on this short edition of Out of Frame. The history of Pixar is truly remarkable, and it's skillfully related in the book Creativity, Inc., by co-founder Ed Katman. It's one of the best books you'll ever read about creativity and nurturing a collaborative innovative team. If you haven't read it and you're interested in a creative career, I could not possibly recommend it more highly. Back in the 1950s, a young Edwin Katmul sat captivated every Sunday by the explanations of Walt Disney on how his company was blending innovative technology with the classic art form of cartoon animation. Although he loved to draw, Ed quickly figured out that he didn't have the kind of talent necessary to become an animator at Disney, and turned his attention to math and science instead. But he never gave up on his dream of making animated movies. While studying computer science at the University of Utah in 1969, Katmul got an idea for a new tool for filmmaking. Computer graphics. Sure, it seems obvious now, but at the time, it just seemed crazy. This was back before personal computers existed, when mainframes with less computing power than a discount smartphone took up entire rooms, and data storage cost about a million dollars per megabyte. But technology barely existed to create and manipulate two-dimensional static graphics, much less 3D moving images. But Katmul believed in the potential of smart, creative humans to innovate their way around technological constraints. After getting his PhD and briefly working as a teacher in the mid-70s, he was hired by the New York Institute of Technology to run their computer graphics laboratory. His team made some major advances, but they didn't really make any headway in terms of actual production. One of the biggest problems Katmul faced was that most movie studios, including Disney after Walt died, were completely uninterested in what computer technology could offer them. While George Lucas smashed box office records with Star Wars in 1977, the visual effects offshoot of Lucasfilm, Industrial Light and Magic was the cutting edge for live-action movies. And in 1979, Lucas set out to add a computer division to ILM, and he hired Ed Katmul to run it. Now, again, this is 1979, we're still a year away from IBM releasing its first PC with a Microsoft operating system. Even with the enthusiastic backing of George Lucas and the carefully cultivated culture of Skywalker Ranch headquarters, it still took four more years to effectively blend computer-generated effects with live-action footage. And it required building a unique piece of technology to do it, the Pixar image computer. Around the same time, a bright young Disney animator named John Lasseter stopped by Lucasfilm to see what was in development. Shortly after that, Lasseter pitched an innovative project to his superiors at Disney that blended traditional animation with computer-generated backgrounds. Not only was Lasseter's idea rejected by his bosses, he was promptly fired. But Disney's short-sightedness was the Pixar group's gain, and Ed Katmul didn't hesitate to hire Lasseter to help with their first animated short, The Adventures of Andre and Wally B, released in 1984, eight years before Disney would use computer-generated effects in their animated feature, Aladdin. But George Lucas wasn't actually interested in making animated films. He only wanted to incorporate computer graphics into live-action movies. That, combined with financial constraints, pushed Lucasfilm to sell the Pixar group to another firm in 1986. And who bought it? Steve Jobs. Soon, the now-independent company released a new animated short, Luxo Jr. in 1987, and another, Tin Toy, in 1988, that won the company its first Oscar. But as a business, Pixar struggled. It tried to be a hardware company by selling its Pixar image computer, then shifted to a software company, neither with any real success. In 1990, they started producing commercials for companies like Trident and Tropicana. They won awards, but didn't make much money. Steve Jobs actually came close to selling Pixar three separate times, between 1987 and 1991, and poured more than $50 million of his own money into keeping the company afloat. But finally, Disney, which had ignored Katmul and fired Lasseter, came to Pixar and offered a deal to finance the production of three feature-length movies. It took some time and a lot of revisions to get a green light from Disney for the script for Toy Story. But a week after Toy Story's record-breaking release in 1995, Pixar went public as a company, exceeding Netscape as the biggest IPO of the year. The rest is mostly history. Thankfully, Ed Katmul, John Lasseter, Steve Jobs, and all the others in the early days of Pixar had confidence in their entrepreneurial vision, despite years of dismissal from others in the movie and technology industries. This is what entrepreneurs all over the world do every day. They have a vision of a better world, and they devote themselves to figuring out how to get there. Whether that's through groundbreaking technology like Pixar or building a better widget, entrepreneurs drive our standards of living higher and higher just by pursuing their own goals in a market economy. Pixar has remained a relentlessly innovative company ever since, pushing the limits of what's possible with technology while still holding fast to its core mission of telling great stories. That's why Pixar has not just survived its 34 years in existence, but found a way to thrive. Hey, everybody. Thanks for watching this short episode of Out of Frame. What did you think? Let me know in the comments. If you want to know more about the importance of entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial way of thinking, check out the links in the description. And don't forget to like, share, and subscribe to all our social channels on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Thanks for watching.


Moodle started as One Man's Vision, Martin, he planted the seed and we as a community helped this thing grow. The Moodle project highlights the great potential of humanity. When we cooperate and collaborate we can achieve extraordinary things.


Here we go. I'm Daniel. I work for Red Hat. I'm a blah blah blah software engineer there and I work in the real-time team but I actually love to work in the university and I actually work from my university in Pisa where I'm living now and I'm trying to connect those real-time and Linux kernel and now runtime verification and the Linux kernel and Red Hat believed on my ideas and now I'm working on this and let's see what you all think. So Linux is critical. There are many people saying that in the future we might use Linux on cars and as a kernel developer I know that the kernel crashes and the cars and crash isn't a good thing, right? And another point is that Linux is complex. Later we will see that model for a part of the things on Linux can reach a huge number of states and it's even hard to explain those things using words because they might be contradictory and it's not easy to translate those things. But because of the critical size of Linux and the complexity of it, we need to be sure that Linux behaves as expect. But what do we expect from Linux, right? Okay, we have a lot of documentation explaining what we should expect of deadline scheduler, for example, or the print RT. We have many different languages. I've learned Linux in Portuguese, for example, and we have a lot of assertions in the code that say, okay, if this happened, I generate a warrant on. You guys, nobody should use the bug on anymore. We learned that. And we have a lot of test cases and fuzzing and all those stuff to try to check if the system behaves. And all these things are good. But we need something more robust. For example, how do we check that our reasoning and how do we check that what we are writing is correct? And how do we check that our asserts are not contradictory? For example, in the real-time community, we say that we do not call a scheduler when we have a preemption disabled, right? That's a common knowledge. But actually, the scheduler is called always with preemption disabled. So these kind of corner cases of understanding, it's hard to assert on our natural language. And how do we check that we are covering all the cases on our tests? And we are expressing all the behavior of Linux. And how can we verify all these ideas? But the main point when we go to safe critical systems or when we go to talk with mathematicians on the real-time community, for example, is that how do we convince people of our properties? It's easy to convince myself, Daniel, that Linux is a good thing, you know, and it will be very easy on this audience. I would not need to explain many things, but when you go to use Linux on cars, you need to convince certification authorities. And they would like something more than just a Linux guy explanation. And what people in computer science say about it when we need to explain complex behaviors, right? Stop working. People say formal methods. That's the first thing that comes to our mind. And we have some successful example of formal methods applied to the Linux kernel. We have the memory management, the memory model that has a lot of examples and catch problems on memory model. We have some somehow formal lock depth. There are many working groups using formal language, for example, people on arm, Gatley Marinas, like he wrote this pain lock implementation and used temporal logic to find bugs. So we have some good examples of formal methods applied to Linux kernel. But we need a more generic and intuitive way for modeling other parts of the kernel or a more broad behavior, not just a simple behavior of a subsystem, like memory or locking, but a way to connect many subsystem on a higher level or in design level. So how can we turn this easier? The answer is like it's using a formal language that looks natural for us. And how do we naturally observe the dynamics of Linux? We trace. We have a lot of tools for tracing. We have F-trace and we have Perf and now BPF and we can do a lot of magic with F-trace and with tracing subsystems. And while tracing, we are inside our minds, create some sort of state machines. And that's natural for our operating system developers because we read a lot of books saying the states of a task on an operating system, right? This seems to be one way to go or an intuitive way to go. Like I just copy and paste this from the gigs for a gigs. Yeah, that's a very computer science need. So when we think about state machines and formal methods, one possible solution is the usage of automatic. So we can use automatic for many things but also to specify event-driven systems. And on event-driven systems, we see the evolution of the system as an event or a sequence of events that forms the language that that system talks. And we can also do use it for around time analysis. So this is a simple example. Let's say that we want to write or to specify how a client, a network client, a bogus network client works. We can say that we can open and close a connection and then we can write a request and read the response, right? This is a very simple case. And it's easy to read in this format. But the good thing about a formal method is that we have a mathematical description of what we specify. And here, I will not enter in the details here, but in the end, one automata is a set of states, for example, a set of states, a finite set of events, and a state transition saying that, oh, in a given state and we've given an event, what is my next state? So we have everything specified, deterministically specified. Automata allows some kind of implicit verification. Like I can check if the reason I'm expressing is that lock free, lock free. And it also allows you the model or development of system by using operations, mathematical operations. And we will try to do an exercise on this. So this was the previous example. And we can model these as a separate set of modules. So we can say that one module is the open and close. So I can open and then my socket will be open. And I can close and then it will be closed. And then I can be ready to write and then I write the request and wait the request and read it. So prayer is straightforward. Then I can synchronize these two small models and create a big model that represents all the chain of events that are possible or that might exist on an unsynchronized version of the system. There will be a set of, it's hard for an Italian to speak, it could stop and I need to move. So here we have a set of events that we expect, like open, close and read, write, and a set of events that we don't expect. It's not correct to write before opening. And it's not expected to close and open while we are in the middle of a connection. This is just an example, right? So then I get events of two or more generators and put inside a small model to synchronize the operation of these events, what we expect. So I say that I can close again. I say that I can close while I'm not in the operation. And I can say that I can only read and write after opening this socket, okay? Makes sense? Simple. And then while modeling there are some tools like here I'm using Supremica, which is academic tool, but it allows to do anything I need. And it says, okay, the system is blocking. This is an implicit verification that gives me evidence that system is either with a live lock or a dead lock. So here I take the model that is creation from the synchronization of our events and I see that there is something strange here because I can open it, but I cannot return to the initial state. So there's something wrong with my specifications. And what was wrong is that I can read right after opening, but I cannot after I close it. With this all synchronized we have the system I had at the beginning, right? Why? Why do you not draw it, Daniel? Yeah, that's easy. Well, why all these problems? Because Linux is complex, right? Linux is way more complex than just three states. For example, I modeled the behavior of the preempt RT and just for the single core case, using the level of abstraction that I was using was not the code. It was the synchronization level, including IRQ-DZ bar to enable preemption control locking and nested locking and scheduling and so on, on the level that we as real-time developers work. And I end up having a model with 9,000 states and more than 23,000 transitions. I could write this, but not in the time of my PhD. And I think I would need some pens, like some two or three to draw it. So just drawing the model by hand, it's not sufficient when you have a complex system like Linux. Using this modular approach, I could break down all the problems on the 12 generators, like small subsystem independent, and 23 specifications which in the end are properties that I wanted to express. And during the development, we found actually four. Now, books that would not, no, three books that could not be detected by any other tool available on Linux. So let's just have a look on that case, right? So I can set need resched when there is a newer higher priority trend. I have a task on a sleepable state. Then if I wake it up or itself sets its state as runnable, I go to runnable and return to sleepable state. I can call the scheduler and return to the scheduler. I can disable preemption to not call the scheduler or disable preemption to actually call the scheduler. I can disable IRQ to avoid IRQs or to while running IRQ avoid the main transce, because IRQs are not preemptible on Linux. We can get a task can switch in and out. And these were the generators. And now I'm starting to expressing and joining all those previous automatas, I would have a view of all the transactions. And I will be sure that it would not be forgetting anyone. Now I start to talk the properties that I expect from Linux. For example, one property is that the scheduler will never be called with IRQs disabled. And that the scheduler will necessarily be called with preemption disabled to actually run the scheduler. And I can say that the context switch will always run inside the scheduler. That scared need we're scared and scared waking will always take place with IRQs and preemption disabled. And these kind of unnecessary conditions to call the context switch. And I know it's boring. And I did it on weekends, because it was in the very beginning, it took me a while to convince Red Hat that I could work this on full time. And it was summer in Tuscany. It was very boring. But I like it. I have to admit. It was nice doing a break. It was nice to show that we have a deterministic set of instructions that makes the parameter deterministic. That was the challenge I was looking for. And that is one good example. Before I was talking about necessary conditions, in which having the necessary conditions that event can happen or cannot. But there are also the possibility of doing sufficient conditions that says that after one thing happened, I am sure that it will, other event will eventually happen. So for example, after I said need resched, I will only return to the initial state after having the context switch. That is, I am forcing the scheduler. And I am blocking all the sleepable operations until there. I'm just trying to find the fastest way to call the scheduler while blocking other kind of code. Here I can abstract these are sleepable code on Linux or a code that are called outside of a frame disabled section. And so these are the possible paths. And I always return to the initial state after a context switch. This is a formal way to say that there is a deterministic set of events and sequence of events that will bring me the need for resched to the scheduling of the highest priority trial on Linux. And that's a good property to show in the real-time realm. So frame 30 is deterministic somehow. And talking to other communities, this idea of modeling, the approach of modeling and the model, it was accepted. There is one journal paper on the review now. So yeah, that is how to model. That was the first part. But how do we use the model? And how can we check the model against the Linux and the Linux against the model to try to get something meaningful for us as kernel users or developers? So in the first part of the project, I use something that is called offline runtime verification in which the model, I talk first about the model and then I will reach in the verification. So in one hand, I start modeling with the formal knowledge about Linux, how it works. I am a developer. I somehow know how it works. And the kernel. And then I start modeling my knowledge and tracing the system. And then I collected trace of Linux. And at that time, I took Perf and tried to run step-by-step the automata with the feed from the trace from the kernel. Then I was trying to validate the model. At the beginning, I found a lot of problems on my model because my reasoning was incomplete or was wrong. But at some point in time, I started seeing problems that were not in the model. They were problems in the kernel. And then it was the point in which we found these useful for runtime verification because before, I was just trying to explain the behavior of the Premcharty. So it was good. But in the sense that I found bugs, the automata verification, as you see, it's done in a good timing. We'll see this later. But as I was tracing the system and as the granularity of the event was so small, I reached cases in a single core. For 30 seconds, I generated 2.5 gigs of data. And that's a massive amount of data. And I was not even tracing all the functions. I was just tracing the synchronization. So what could we do to turn it better? So I translated that from an offline kind of runtime verification into an online and synchronous runtime verification. And these are the steps. And I'll explain one by one. So in the first place, we have the big model. And then I have to translate that model to something that we can run on a computer. So I wrote a PyTOS script that just translates the formal definition of the model into C code. Yay. And here's one example of the code translation. I have a simple model in which I said that while in Premcharty, I will not wake up a task. That is the necessary condition to call the schedule waking is disabled in Premcharty. And I just run the script and voila. I translated the set of states into an enum and the set of events on one enum. And I used the classical definition of automata. And I fulfilled the automata with the data from the C definition of the automata with information from the real automata. And it turns out to be very simple data structures. And we will see why it's good now, I hope. So that was generating the code. Now we will need to try to code to link that auto self-generated code with the kernel. And so here is one of the, here is the main function on the runtime verification, which is anytime I receive one event from the kernel, like disable in Premcharty, I will call this function telling which event I am receiving. And here is just the information about the tracing where I store data. So I get the current state. Given the current state and the event I am receiving, I am getting the next state, I am expected to go. If it's an impossible state, I go to the next state. I might print some debug information or not. But if it's not expected, I print the bug information and like do a stack trace. I can take any action. But here is just an example of stack trace. Now going into the functions. So get the current state is a variable lookup. Set the current state is writing into a variable. Get the next state is a metrics lookup. Simple things. Getting the name of the event is also getting the name of the event and the states are just vector lookups. So, yeah, all the operations are O of 1. And this means that it doesn't matter how frequently I call the event. It doesn't matter how frequently it will not affect. What will affect there is the number of states. Or no better. The number of states doesn't matter. What matters is the frequency that I call this verification code. And I just use one variable to keep the state. So these are good properties. And in the end, I load the model and while running the system, if I don't find any exceptions, if one event that's not recognized doesn't happen, I can do, I can print into the trace buffer or I can just ignore it because things are working fine. And if some unexpected event happens, I can print some information. So here's one example. Let's say that I was, that I catch one case in which I was in the primitive state. And after disabling, I, after I returned to the initial state, I had the scan waking which was not expected. And then I say, hey, there's a problem here. And this problem was a bug in the tracing subsystem and that a bug that no other tool could catch. And I forgot to open the link, but here's the link and here's the information. So okay, nice. But we know that there is no free meal, right? It's nice to say, oh, it runs, it's O of one, blah, blah, blah. And okay, I was using a not compact structure. I was using a vector, right? But I was thinking if I had any structure data, I would have two lockups in O of N or O of N by the numbers of events that can be called on that state. And the overhead of putting linkings and other things will be too high for just one variable that I want to store there. And also for the prem chart model, which is a, let's say a big model, it uses only eight kilobytes of data. It's not that much. It's affordable for nowadays computer for doing verification. So in the end, it's acceptable. And in practice, we don't need such a big model like I did. We can check just some property of the system that we want to observe. It's better to have a good model, a big model, because it's more efficient, but I can just check some properties if I want to. For example, I can do while testing the latency on the prem chart. I can also try to catch cases in which I would potentially go into sleep while I, in an atomic context or when I cannot go to sleep because I'm either with IRQ or Premption Disabled. So I could run, could try to catch logical problems in the prem chart while ruining the, the, the performance measurement. So we can do both things at once if the thing is performs well enough, right? And that's what we see now. How efficient is this idea? Okay, it's nice to say it's all of one, my boy. But in practice, like, we, we need to see things on the, on the way that we like with benchmarks, right? So I did two benchmarks. I used the Forex test suite, which I like it. And it's good for doing academic papers because they format the outputs on SVG and we can do a lot of transformation on the graphs and it's very nice. And I did test for either throughput and for latency, which is the domain I like more. So the base comparison in the kernel SEs is the kernel without any trace or verification, just the kernel running. And the trace is while tracing the events that I'm verifying, but just tracing it, not processing, just saving it in the trace buffer. And I'm using that model in the prem 13. So when not calling kernel as expected, it will not cause many interference, right? It's sometimes it's even in the error margin. So not calling the kernel, it doesn't affect. Okay, that's expected and it's good that things are as expected. But when we start to doing high activation on the kernel, we will see some performance degradation. That's normal, right? That's what there is more code running there. But the good thing is that the verification is always in between the baseline kernel and the tracing. And also, like you're running the latency tests with the cyclic test, like this is the line of kernel, the Premchart kernel running. And this is the line with verification and this is the line with trace. So it causes less overhead than tracing because we are not storing data in the trace buffers, the number of operations are bounded, they are smaller than tracing. So it, I don't want to say that tracing is bad. So because I'm friend of Steven and I like him. What I wanted to say is that this approach is efficient enough to be used in production because we can trace in production, right? And as we can trace in production, we can do verification as well because we don't cause more damage than them. And actually, I'm using the trace infrastructure to hook the events to the kernel while running. So I'm a trace user. And this idea was also academically accepted, like I talked to them and they liked it. And there are more things to come. So it's possible to model complex behavior of Linux using a formal language, creating big models from small one. And it's also possible to verify properties of the model. And as automata is run executable formalism, we can also run other kinds of formalism on top of the automata rather than on the code, like using temporal logic. And it's possible to run, to verify the runtime behavior of Linux. So now I'm working with Steven and Arnaldo to make a generic subsystem. I don't know how to say this or a generic way to run the, to verify the system using automata. And both with Perf because there are cases in which it's better to use an offline runtime verification and we have trace when it's better to use an online for runtime verification. Also, I need to explain this using, I have all these described in papers, but papers are boring for this community.  So we were talking to try to translate all these ideas into Linux kernel natural language. And there are other things that we need to model on the system, like parts of lock depth, for example. Because like one, one reason to try at least is that as I'm using dynamic trace, I can run all these things and plug and unplug while the system is running. I don't need to recompile if I already have the events I need. So it's handy. And I was, I'm talking to Joel Fernandes. We are trying to make something with RCU and trying to show that this idea is not only applicable for one case. Because it will not be useful if it's just for my case. All right. But, okay, it's worth mentioning now, like I say, there are many good things about the runtime verification of Linux, but blah, using automata. But I don't want to say that this is the only way and that this is the best way. It's not, it's not the best way. There are a lot of ways to model Linux. We can model on a code level and trying to explain like the behavior of spin locks and using like promela and then using temporal logic to verify. That's one kind of formal modification we can run. We can also have runtime or static code analysis that there are people find a lot of bugs and fix bugs with that. So the theory I'm working here is for runtime behavior, for system, for more design level, not, can be used at also code level, but more design level thing. And there is space for a lot of research on formal methods on Linux kernel. There are many good people working on many good projects. There's the personal project that verifies the drivers for Linux. It's linux testing.org, I think. And there are, the thing with Coxinel, they also based on, Julia also works on this. So there are many good people working and the more and more we will see the application of formal methods on Linux and the more we see the better, the more abstraction, the better, the more ways to verify it. It's better because we don't want to cause to be crashing because of a linux crash. Something else? No. That's it. It went fine. So thank you for not sleeping.


A technical college is not just for people that can't get into a four-year and I've heard that a lot that you didn't get into a four-year so you're at a tech school and that's where you have to go because you're not smart enough to get into UW. And I think that's ridiculous because tech schools are for people that want to save money. They are for smart people. I mean people from like the top of their classes are coming to tech schools.  It's for people that want hands-on experience or people that want small classes. It's not just because you couldn't get into a four-year school that you're here and I think that's important that people understand that it's not just for that.


It's not been uncommon to see grown men on the side of these hills crying and pain My name is Todd Gentry. I'm a corporal in the Denver Police Department at District 2 And I'm training for the Spartan Ultra Beast It's 26 plus miles and 60 plus obstacles everything from pushing pulling and climbing Crawling agility stuff heavy lifting I'd like to come in under 10 hours I wanted to dedicate the race to my sister and her husband and their two kids that have autism It's easy to get lost in the day-to-day grind of a lot of what we do and We see a lot of the worst of the worst A small amount that i'm gonna be able to raise a couple thousand dollars not going to solve autism by any means But it's just the idea of being a part of something bigger than yourself and giving back to the community