or that region. I would be happy to give way to any member who wants to criticise that investment, so I will give way to Mr Crawford. Bruce Crawford. Have you got your nomination papers in yet? When you stand for Westminster and you do not win, will you leave this place? Sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thought that you were going to say that it would be an inappropriate remark from someone of Mr Crawford's experience. We are debating a serious issue of basing reviews, and I will refrain my remarks to that. If the SNP is worried about who is going to stand for the Conservatives in Murray, I will let them stoop over that for a week while longer. As we move on, we have seen significant investment by the UK Government in Murray, and all that could be in jeopardy with an independent Scotland. As Jackson Carlaw's amendment clearly states that an independent Scotland would have a very limited military footprint, which would weaken our defence of the nation. I do not want that for Murray, I do not want that for Scotland and I do not want that for the United Kingdom. It has been very telling in this entire debate not a single SNP member mentioned defence in an independent Scotland, despite it being in one of the amendments we are going to vote on this afternoon. It is because their plans are indefensible. I say that they are indefensible and it has been confirmed by a number of people that we would have a small military footprint if we had an independent Scotland and the SNP cannot answer the problems on that. Now I accept what a number of members have said that there have been difficult decisions to take during this defence review, but I also see day in and day out, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year, the impact our armed forces have in our local communities. They do their jobs and we have to deliver for them and that means a defence estate that is efficient, that is modern and capability focused. Now, like others, I want to quickly mention some of the remarks that have been made during the debate. Jackson Carlaw was quite right to highlight the footprint of the defence across the United Kingdom—420,000 hectares—and he also said that the reduction in the defence footprint in the UK has been more significant than we have seen here in Scotland. David Stewart was able to tell us about his experience on some aircraft. He had been on a maritime aircraft, a sea king and this allows me the opportunity to say that I became the first UK politician to fly in one of the Poseidon PA—something that I am very proud of, and I appreciate the opportunity to add to the remarks made by Mr Stewart. Maurice Golden spoke of the historic and on-going defence of the nation by the MOD. Stewart Stevenson spoke about Murray bases, neither of which are in his Bampshire and Bucking coast constituency, and I am left to wonder whether he asked to mention this because the Murray MSP, Richard Lochhead, has not attended today's debate. I then move on to Mark Ruskell. Mark Ruskell gave his opinion. I will withdraw that. If Mr Lochhead is not here to be able to be here because of a funeral today, I apologise for that. If I can just say, it is important to get that on the record, because people in Murray would have been concerned that their Murray MSP was not here, and I am grateful for that opportunity to explain to him why he was not in the chamber to speak about a hugely important issue for Murray. Mark Ruskell went on to give his opinion on opposing Trident, but he did not explain why more Scots support Trident than oppose it. Bruce Crawford mentioned the city deal and MOD rationalisation. Although I accept his concerns over the timing, it was good to hear him agreeing with the general principles. Mike Rumbles spoke about his 15 years in the army and highlighted, I think, very importantly family life for service families and the benefits he believes could be achieved by stabilising army life with the consolidation of three primary hubs. Marie Todd would not take a single intervention. I tried and I tried and I tried and she would not take a single intervention. Could it be because in an eight minute speech she could not bring herself to welcome the huge investment by the UK Government in Murray, an area that she represents as part of the Highlands and Islands region? Edward Mountain, with his experience in the armed forces, is now hoping to convene a task force with local politicians and businesses. I am grateful to hear another volunteer to a group that I will be happy to join in Davies Stewart and I am sure other politicians will join forces with that. Maurice Corry, in a very brief contribution, did mention his armed forces career and continued that as an armed forces champion as a councillor on Argyllin Bute Council and highlighted rightly that decisions are taken on the advice of defence chiefs and I think that that is important. I just want to briefly finish, if I can, deputy Presiding Officer on how proud we all are about what the military do in Scotland, in the UK and around the world in protecting us. We are equally proud to call them our friends, our neighbours and to work with them locally. I hope our service personnel know after today's debate despite the political points made by all parties that we are indebted to their service, their sacrifices and their support. I now call on Keith Brown to close this debate up to 11 minutes please, cabinet secretary. Thank you deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you as well to those who have made helpful contributions to this afternoon's debate. I think that, as I said when I opened, those are far-reaching defence cuts and perhaps the most far-reaching defence cuts ever made in Scotland. They will have a detrimental impact across Scotland and all of us in this chamber have a responsibility to the communities that we represent to make our collective voice heard on this issue. I cannot think that I have not had an answer to the question why there is not a single Conservative MSP who will oppose anyone. If I can just finish this point, I will take your intervention in a second. A single Tory MSP will oppose a single closure where your colleagues in south of the border feel perfectly able to stand up for their communities alongside representatives of other parties. On that point I will give you the other sources. Will you clarify your remarks then, because you can confirm that I oppose the closure of Kinlos? You are saying that that was a genuine closure. If that did not happen, then why can't you accept that I oppose those closures? That is an example of Conservatives working in their constituencies to oppose those closures. Keith Brown, I remind everyone yet again that there are not private conversations between people during debates. You should always speak through the chair. Keith Brown. Thank you deputy Presiding Officer. My understanding of what Douglas Ross has said is that this was a proposal that was never going to happen. The closure was never going to happen, but he prevented it. He was the one that—it's just bizarre. Not only did he not prevent it long before the decision was taken, he deserted the field and said that it was done. It was safe. I am confident in my sources that this was a last minute decision and it was overturned. If you are not confident, if you don't know your story, you should talk to your own Conservative ministers. The Conservative members should talk to their own ministers and their own Governments, and obviously they haven't been doing that, otherwise they would know. In the case of the HM Naval Base Clyde, the Scottish Government's position, of course, on the nuclear deterrent, which I never mentioned at the start of my speech, because I did try initially at least—and I know that it was perhaps foolish—to see if there was common ground between us. That was the approach that I took at the start, and of course that was immediately exploded by—not just now, I'll try to make some more progress—an absolutely dire, dire tribe from Jackson Carlaw. He will regret, I think, for many years to come, his description of the bases that are to be closed as a heritage tour. That is what he said. Communities across this country will know the Conservative view of those bases in terms of their relevance, their importance, as we heard very eloquently from Christine Grahame to the local communities, described by the Conservatives as a heritage tour, dripping contempt for those communities and the people who are trying to maintain that link with the armed forces in their communities. Again, we saw right away which way that was going to go in terms of the Conservatives, immediately going to the constitution once again. They are utterly obsessed by the constitution. Not mentioned in my motion, trying to have a debate about a decision in terms of closing bases. That was what we tried to do, and of course he went off in his own kind of way. Why is it the case? As I said, there is not one single Conservative MSP that can actually muster at this stage, no-wants. Can it muster any opposition to any of the closures, whereas colleagues south of the border have a spine? Maybe they have collective ownership of the Tory spine this week, but at least they can oppose it when the people here can't, Deputy Presiding Officer. So what we have seen is that there is no opposition to be had from the Conservatives. That will haunt them in the next two months during the course of this election, Deputy Presiding Officer, when people want to put questions to Conservative council candidates and parliamentary candidates as to why they have so supinely allowed this closures to take place without any opposition whatsoever. Dave Stewart, I thought, made a very good contribution, and he also pointed out the fact that this was about communities. Edward Mountain had talked about this, it's not about buildings. I agree, it is about people, it's about communities, those who serve in the armed forces and the communities that work with them. First of all, this is perhaps the most important point of this debate, in my view. For the last seven years, I have been minister for veterans in the Scottish Government. I have been able to tell all the events, including the one that was mentioned by Dave Stewart, the one this week when we had one in terms of the armed forces visit scheme, that within this Parliament we have a consensus that all the parties respect and support the members of our armed forces. We agree that we all support the members of our armed forces. What we had from Maurice Golden in the words he said was, all military personnel are expendable to people like me and people in this party. I will ask him to think about that. There are two things that apply. First of all, I find it profoundly offensive. I think that many other people would do as well. If you heard what Bruce Crawford had to say about his son and his father as well, profoundly offensive, I am not saying that it's going to worry the Tories too much that I find it offensive. However, it is the case, and he should know this, that veterans and those in the armed forces are very grateful for the fact that, at least we agree on that basic point, although we have fundamental disagreements in terms of Trident and other aspects. We do have a general agreement. I will give him the chance, either now or during the course of the rest of my summing-up, to intervene and clarify his remarks. I am sure that he cannot mean that we think that the members of our armed forces, every single person, is expendable. I am sure that he didn't mean to say that. I am happy to give him the intervention if he wants to come back in and correct that. If not, it certainly changes my script for what I am able to say to veterans, the armed forces and the outside world about the views held within this Parliament. Mike Rumbles said in a bizarre intervention, that it was the SNP's fault that those closures were taking place. It was down to the SNP. I think that his logic was that they had failed to prevent it. If I can just make the point first and I let you come in after that. Maybe it was Min Campbell's fault, the original decision in terms of Lucas, or was it? It makes the Mike Weir's credit that we have so far kept for five commando, but it makes no sense at all. It just shows the desperate measures that Mike Rumbles will go to to try to protect the Conservatives, perhaps potential future coalition partners, rather than to talk about the important issue here, which is a close to the basis. I have all taken intervention from Mike Rumbles. I think that the minister has deliberately misunderstood the point that I was making. With 50-odd MPs in the House of Commons, I would have thought that, if they worked together with the UK Government on issues like this to influence events, it is obvious that they have not done so or have been able to do so. Keith Brown I think that confirms for everyone how bizarre the intervention was from Mike Rumbles previously. The idea that a Conservative Government—and it always seems to be a Conservative Government—Germ Day spoke about the various chopping and changing that has happened since 2010 until this point about changes in the UK Government's approach to military bases and how it has chopped and changed. Actually, Gordon MacDonald did exactly the same thing. It goes back further than that in relation to 4.5 commando. Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s wanted to abolish the entire Royal Marine Corps, as I remember. That has been going on for a long period of time. It seems to me that we could have had a bit of consensus about the fact that perhaps there would be a different approach from the Conservatives in Scotland or even the same approach as those of our colleagues south of the border who are willing to oppose it. Unfortunately, we have not been able to have that today, which is unfortunate. Edwin Mountain I will do it from Edwin Mountain. Edwin Mountain You accuse us of taking one line on this issue. Are there any bases in Scotland that you do not think can fit for purpose and that should perhaps be considered for closure to benefit the troops that are actually being posted there? Keith Brown It is a very fair point, but I can refer Edwin Mountain to the point that I made when I made my opening speech. I said to Mark Lancaster at the very start before any decisions were taken in relation to any of those closures. Fort George was the one most in point, because the Scottish Government, as you will know, has a very fundamental interest in Fort George. If there were concerns about the fitness, the suitability of any of the bases, let us work together and see what we can try to achieve. That has never been done. That is why, as was pointed out by Christine Grahame, the motion that you have put forward, the amendment that you have put forward, talks about continuing engagement with the Scottish Government. There has been no engagement with the Scottish Government. It is the case that we are going to have to help local authorities to pick up the educational consequences, the employment consequences. The thing to have done would be to try and work together on that. Instead, we have been totally excluded from that. Of course it is the case that not all bases are fit for purpose, but you have asked me that question. Can I ask Edwin Mountain the question? Does he think that Glen Cross barracks fall into that category, not fit for purpose, not suitable as a Ministry of Defence facility? I am happy to give away. I am sure that the minister listened to what I said earlier during the speech that I do not know my way around Glen Cross barracks as well as Christine Grahame does. I have to take on advisement what she said. I asked you a specific question. It is unfair for you to throw it back at me. Is there one barracks in all the barracks that are earmarked for closure that the Scottish National Party thinks is not suitable for soldiers in the 21st century? I just have answered the question. Surely it has got to be the case that the UK Government can make a case for any basis that they feel need to be closed, and they should talk to the Scottish Government about it. Tell us what the detail of it is so that we can actually respond to it. That is what they have refused to do. That is why they cannot be the dialogue that I would have thought that Edward Mountain would have known, given his remarks in the speech about the condition of Glen Cross barracks, just to remind him that £60 million spent is recently as 2006 and now being shut. On that point, it seems to be that the Tories south of the border have possession of the Tories spine this week, but if it is possible for some Tories to come on board and say that they will be part of the programme, I am saying now that I would predict that not all those base closures will go ahead. I will be held to that in future years. It is on the record, you can hold me to that. I think that not all of those bases will be closed, so it is possible. As Dave Stewart made the point, if we stand together and we make the case, we can stop some of it, especially the more absurd of those closures. That is all this motion seeks to do. However, it seems clear from the Conservative response that there is no chance that they want to be part of this. They want to slavishly follow the line handed down to them from London rather than stand up for local communities. I predict that they will pay a heavy price at the local and forthcoming general election. When their candidates are unable to say, we will stand up for the local communities affected by those closures. I would conclude on that last point, since I see that Maurice Golden has not sought to intervene on me and come back and clarify the remarks that he has made. It is now the case because there were murmurs of approval from the Conservatives when they made the comment that the Conservative position is that the SNP—myself and the SNP—support would believe that all military personnel are expendable. That is the view that explodes the consensus that we have had in this Parliament for the past seven years. I will give way to Maurice Golden if he wants to try and rectify that. Maurice Golden was clearly in reference to the way in which the SNP is treating this issue. I would hope that Mr Brown would recognise that, but how many military personnel will there be in an independent Scotland? People will look at that comment and realise that it is the position of the Conservative party that they believe that there is no consensus in this Parliament that we respect the armed forces personnel of this country and that one party at least in this Parliament believes military personnel to be expendable. It is a despicable thing to have said. It is profoundly insulting to people across the chamber. We have had your chance to rectify that. The Tories had the chance of trying to support the local communities trying to oppose those bases. They refused to do it. I hope that it is more small pass and that the rest of us in this chamber will oppose those closures. That concludes our debate on defence-based reforms. We move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion 5176, in the name of Clare Adamson, on behalf of the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on Standing Order rule changes for supermajorities. I call on Clare Adamson to speak to and move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Under the Scotland Act 2016, there will be a new supermajority requirement for legislation on certain subjects relating to Scottish Parliament elections. Those include the number of MSPs, the electoral system and who can vote in Scottish Parliament elections. Any bill on those subjects will require a two thirds majority of MSPs to be passed by the Parliament. The SPPA Committee has considered how to translate those requirements into standing orders. Today, we proposed some changes to the rules. A report sets out the details of those changes and they include a new requirement for Presiding Officer to make a statement about whether a bill requires a supermajority to be passed, a requirement for the Parliament to vote on every bill after the conclusion of stage 3 debate in order to formally record the result, and a procedure for what happens if the Supreme Court disagrees with Presiding Officer's decision on a supermajority question. Once those new standing orders are in place, the new powers over the Scottish Parliament elections can be commenced and transferred, and I am pleased to move the motion in my name. Thank you very much. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 525520, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 52520. Formally moved. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, I put the question that the question is that we agree motion number 52520. Why are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of two Parliamentary Bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau to move motions 5193 and 5194 on the approval of SSIs. There are six questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 5185.3, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, which seeks to amend motion 5185, in the name of Keith Brown on defence basing reforms, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll have a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 5185.3, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, is yes, 31, no, 80. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 5185.1, in the name of David Stewart, which seeks to amend the motion, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 5185.1, in the name of David Stewart, is yes, 74, no, 36. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 5185, in the name of Keith Brown, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 5185, in the name of Keith Brown, on defence basing reforms, as amended, is yes, 74, no, 37. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended, is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 5176, in the name of Claire Adamson, on behalf of the Standards Committee, on supermajorities, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 5193, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on the approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? And we are agreed. The final question is that motion 5194, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on the approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Point of order, Stuart Stevenson. Presiding Officer, I want to raise the point of order under section 7.3, respect to other members. I am not under the circumstances going to name the member who has caused me to do this, because the member has already made a ffalsum and proper apology. However, I just wanted to clear for the record and for future reference for members here, that if a member is to accuse one of the members here for being absent, they should properly have made inquiries as to the reason that that person is absent. So that they do not infringe rule 7.3. Thank you, Mr Stevenson. I think that the point was noted during the debate by the member concerned too, but I thank the member for raising that point. Another point of order, Clare Haughey. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wish to also raise a point of order under standing order 7.3. Today, at First Minister's questions, Ruth Davidson said, in relation to the 0.7 per cent aid commitment that, and I quote, Theresa May herself gave the commitment to the aid budget when she was in East Kilbride at the DFID headquarters, where the aid is administered all around the world. But if you read the speech that the Prime Minister gave that day, it gives no such commitment. So why did Ruth Davidson mislead Parliament? Will the UK Tory manifesto commit to an up point 7 per cent, as Ruth Davidson seems to be claiming, or will she now take the opportunity to correct the record? Can I thank Ms Haughey for raising that point of order? It is important that all members treat each other with courtesy and respect. In this case, I think that Ms Haughey is asking me to intervene in a matter that will be settled during the general election debate. I would encourage Ms Haughey and Ms Davidson to resolve the matter in the general election debate, and not in the parliamentary chamber, if possible. I conclude decision time.


Hello, welcome back to the Happy Hearts. I'm Neil and usually this is the Tightwad Dad vlog. It's a place where we try to be happy with what we've already got, but today that's really true. I'm going to be really happy with what I've already got because I've got these. These are the Urban Ears Platin 2 headphones. They are all over the ear if I can't hear. They're an all over ear headphone. Look, you can even twist them around. One of my most popular videos on the channel, bizarrely, is me unboxing these very headphones, the Indigo Platin 2 Urban Ears headphones, not the Bluetooth ones. They're corded. They've got this wire and it detaches as well. Anyway, this video has got so many views. You can see it playing now where actually I'm doing an unboxing of the Platin 2 and comparing them with the Platin 1. Now, I've been using these headphones every single day and I only realized the other day that I've been using these daily for two years. I thought I'd do two things in this video. One is to show you how the Urban Ears Platin 2 headphones look after two years of daily use. I'll give you some close-ups in a second, but also compare them with a brand new set of Platin 2s. Look, see how beautiful and clean and stitched they are. I've been using these every day for two years, but they've held up. Excuse me. They've held up really well and I just want to show you which ways they've held up and which ways they have probably deteriorated over two years. Anyway, this is what the box looks like. I actually got these new Platin 2s for my long-suffering wife to help drown out me next to her. Wow, they feel different. There's no Netflix account that can compensate for having to live with me, I don't think, but these sort of drown me out most of the time. They're slightly different in a number of ways and I've even just noticed a few of the differences now and I wanted to go through those with you. But let's take a look at the old Platin 2s to show you a glimpse into the future of what yours might look like if you use them every day for two years. The first thing is let me show you under the head. That has fared really well. There's just a little bit of where the color has come away from the rubberized headband. So this has worked really well. I think basically I've got a filthy head and I should clean more often and I think the oil from my face and my head has worn this over time. The fabric has held up quite well as well. I think you can see. I've spilled coffee on it. I haven't really bothered to clean it with fabric cleaner but in the comments on the other video a few people were discussing best ways of cleaning these. I've not tried it but I would use one of those pink sprays, one of those Oxy sprays that you have for upholstery. That will probably get that up. But they don't look too filthy thanks to the indigo color. Now the next bit of wear and tear is on the ears. So I don't know if you can see but these have completely unstitched themselves. So you can see the foam inside. They're still really comfortable though. But let me compare them with the new pair. You can see the stitching is pristine. That's how these used to look. The oil from my face and being scrunched up as well has meant that some of the indigo coloring has come away. Now the great thing with these ear cups and I made another video about this. I'll give you a clip now. It's to show you how to disconnect the ear cups and replace them. I'll leave a link to that video in the description or if you click on the eye on the top of the screen. But just to show you if you wanted to get new ones they cost about 14 pounds and another 14 pounds for delivery direct from Urban Ears. But you can really easily disconnect them and they just twist on really easily. The last element of these lovely headphones is the cord. I don't know if you can see it's slightly frayed. Now that is completely my fault because they're designed to be wound up. And then you can tuck the 3.5mm jack under the cable like this and then I pull it tight and then I throw it in my bag. What happens is I don't know if you can see that but because I haven't extended the cups the cable clashes against the headband and bends it and over time two years every day. It has caused the cable to bend slightly and wear away. It still works really well. They still sound fantastic. What I didn't say in the unboxing review video was how they sounded but I thought it was pretty obvious that I was replacing another pair that itself was I think five years old. The sound is phenomenal. These cups kind of block out everything else around you which is why I've got them for my long suffering wife. But the sound is really rich and really warm. It's my favourite sounding headphones and they're so comfortable as well. I use them for really long you know walking long movies. So it sounds like someone's house being broken into. So that's the tour of the two-year-old Platin 2 headphones. But look at this. These are dark grey headphones. I'll just give you a comparison of the colour. There are some differences between the two and I can see one immediately when I do this. The new headphones they have some kind of magnet attachment. So where the ear cups meet the headband, Urbaniers calls this a flexible 3D hinge.  The other big difference that I've noticed in fact I think it's the only other difference it's identical in all other respects is this. This is how the Platin 2 jack has fared over two years. I put it over my head. There we go that's a nice focus. I don't think see but the top of the L-shaped jack has worn away over time. Now again this is completely my fault because I have quite a chunky case on my phone. Although it's got an L-shaped jack which is really helpful and has lasted much longer than the jack on the original Platin headphones. You can see the rubber has worn away but look at the new Platin 2 jack. They've given a very generous amount of protection on the end there because they know that's where it's going to be pulled out over time. So you can see it's got this kind of rubber shield and it's concertinered. I don't know what this is for this hole. I can only imagine it so you can tidally fold it up like that but that seems to be putting a lot of pressure on the wire. I don't think I'd bother doing that. Not that they're my headphones. Wrap the cable around and it's still clashing with the head band. So what I would advise if you get these headphones is to probably each time you do this push them up a bit. I know that's made it worse. Okay push them down a bit and then you'll see that the cable clears. But the great thing with the Platin 2 is that the cable is replaceable. So this cable comes out. Don't do this if you have the Platin the original Platin. Is it Platin or Platin? This detaches as well so this part is completely replaceable and you could put in a cord that doesn't have the microphone built in. Also same with the other Platin 2. There's an extra 3.5 millimeter jack so you can daisy chain your headphones and I can listen to things with my long-suffering wife if she lets me in. She's probably going to watch this video on these headphones. But do you have any questions? Leave a comment. I'm sure there's something I've forgotten but leave a question below or just to say hi it'd be lovely to hear from you. Maybe someone else can help you out with any questions that you might have about this but I'll leave a link to the original video in the description because everything or the details are there. The last thing I wanted to do is to just check if the ear cups detach. This could go horribly wrong. Yes there you go. I haven't broken them. They do go back on and I don't think this will show up on the camera but it says pop me back on or order a replacement at urbaneers.com. I hope this has helped you decide whether or not you want the Platin 2 urban ears headphones. I cannot recommend them more highly and like I say I've used mine every day for two years and before that daily for five years with the original Platin. I'd better put this back together. If you've reached this point of the video it'll be fantastic if you could send me a little signal to let me know someone got this far. Just hit the thumbs up and if you're feeling even kinder why not hit the subscribe button. You never have to watch anything or watch ever again but every subscription helps me get closer to 10,000 subscribers. It took me two years to get to 1,000 so I think we're looking at 20-30 for smashing the 10,000 barrier. If you want to help me on that journey thank you and good luck with your purchase. There are links to the Urban Ears Platin 2 in the description. If you buy them from there Amazon give me a few pennies so if you buy them from there thank you in advance. Can you please help my daddy get 1,000 subscribers? Just click in the space. Thanks bye. How was that?


Top Tips for Teaching in English-Speaking Countries Most people who want to earn a TEFL slash TSAL certificate will be planning to teach English in a country that does not speak English as its first language. This is not surprising, the vast majority of jobs available for English teachers are bound to be in countries where the local population does not speak English. However, this does not mean there are no opportunities to teach English in your home country if you are a native English speaker. From working with newly arrived immigrants to teaching international students, there are plenty of jobs available for those who have the right to work in these countries. Finding Jobs in the USA If you are looking for work as an ESL teacher in the United States the best places to look are those with large immigrant populations such as Florida, California, Texas, and New York. Due to immigration restrictions non-U.S. citizens will have difficulty finding legal work in America and most jobs will tend to be reserved for U.S. citizens only. For teaching jobs in government schools, teachers will need to be licensed by the State Education Department. Private language schools require TEFL slash TSOL certificate only. Teaching English in Canada In Canada the majority of jobs can be found in Vancouver, Toronto, and Ottawa. Although Canadian citizens have the best chances of securing a teaching position, those from Commonwealth countries may find it easier than those from other countries. The Canadian government runs the Odyssey scheme placing English speaking assistants in French speaking schools. There are plenty of opportunities in the UK. The UK offers a number of English teaching opportunities especially in the spring and summer months due to the large number of English summer camps. Non-EU citizens will find it harder to find work due to the paperwork involved in hiring those from outside the Eurozone, however there are teaching exchange programs which enable non-EU citizens to teach in the UK. Enjoy the charms of the Emerald Isle. As a member of the European Union, teaching opportunities in Ireland are best for those with an EU country passport. For non-EU citizens looking to work as an English teacher in Ireland it is worth checking out the work abroad programs available to students. Most jobs are to be found with private language schools teaching general English courses or more specialized business English lessons. There is a strong demand for English teachers in Australia. Australia is a popular destination for many students in Asia looking to study English in a native English speaking country. This means there are plenty of opportunities for teachers. Low government schools and intensive English centers require teachers to have education degrees in addition to their TEFL slash TEES all certificate. Private language centers have different requirements which can vary between institutions. New Zealand has a number of jobs available for English teachers. Those looking to teach in New Zealand are better off trying the urban centers of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. TEFL slash TEES all certificate holders will be able to find work with the many private language schools in New Zealand while government schools require degree in education in addition to a TEFL slash TEES all certificate. Are you ready to start teaching today? Speak with an ITTT advisor today to put together your personal plan for teaching English abroad. Send us an email or call us toll free at 1-800-490-0531 to speak with an ITTT advisor today.


As the media landscape constantly reinvents itself, it will be extremely important for all the media companies to keep on evolving. So what does 2020 hold for our media companies and media agencies? And who better to throw some light to this than our next speaker? Well, he's none other than Mr. Stephen Allen, Media Comm's Worldwide Chairman and CEO, according to independent research company, RECMA. During Stephen's tenure as Worldwide CEO and Chairman of Media Comm, the company jumped from being the world's seventh largest media network to becoming the world's third largest media network. So without further ado, may I request Mr. Stephen Allen to kindly step onto the stage and I would also like to request Dr. Anurag Batra to come up and steer a conversation with Mr. Stephen Allen. A huge round of applause, ladies and gentlemen, for both the amazing dignitaries stepping onto the stage. Thank you. Good evening. Please give Stephen a bigger round of applause. He had two conditions before he came up on stage. He said either I can have six shots of single malt come up or applause would do. We haven't opened the bar so can you give him a bigger round of applause? Thank you. Am I switched on? I was just going to say thank you for the very generous introduction.  That's okay. I'm a fake doctor. The university is owned by my sister one day. She wrote me a mail saying she wants to give me a PhD and actually, you know, I'm the kind of guy who waits for emails. The moment an email comes, I send it back, you know, other types of that. In fact, people ask me what did I get the PhD for? I said emailing. Ironically, the mail went into a junk box for I didn't see it for 10, 20 days because it came from my sister. So I can get you that doctor. It's easy. I have permanent head damage. Thank you. You can give me a PhD. So if you want that, we can get Dr. Srinni to make it happen if you want or Dr. Balsara, whoever you want. And then we'll come to you. But on a serious note, also give Charles a bigger round of applause. I think you were very frugal with the applause you gave to Charles. Do you want to answer your phone? No, no, no. I have some questions. I'm not going to take phone. Okay. All right. Yeah, but somebody's calling. I have questions here, so that's the only reason I have it open. You know, since the time, this is the 19th year of the conclave. Since the time we've started the conclave, this debate about specialization versus a full service agency has been on. I think almost every conclave, we've done this debate in some form. We're in 2019. Tell us in 2020, will we still have this debate? Okay. Or the journalists, you know, where is the trend moving to? Okay. So maybe if I may, Anirag, I will just a little bit about my background and in that context about specialization. So this is my 37th year with MediaCom. I like to tell people that I started when I was about nine. We meant to laugh. But anyway, the point is that when I started, we were part of one of the very early original what was then called media independence. And in that time, media specialism represented about 5% of total advertising spend. So 95% was going through ad agencies. And really, you know, we spent, I spent the first few years of my career trying to persuade people why specialism was the way to go. Then along came an agency called Zenif, which was really Saachi's unbundling media. And it kind of changed everything because it then became the norm. And we all know, you know, as the years evolved, really virtually 100% of media was going through media specialists of one kind or another.  How come they haven't got rid of you yet? Well, I have constant sleepless nights. And the reason I have constant sleepless nights, ask any of my colleagues, I really don't sleep very long, is because I'm always thinking and worrying about what do we need to do next? How do we remain relevant? And basically what's happened and what I've witnessed is if I go back over the last, just even 20 years, I mean, before that, it was simple. We had TV, newspapers, radio, a little bit of out of home. Then along came this thing called the internet. That gave birth to a whole new generation of specialists, search specialists, et cetera. Then as it evolved, we saw specialists in social, specialists in mobile. And every time it was like a kick up our backside, a wake-up call that reminded us that we needed to be better to specialize in these areas. And what you saw often was these companies, these specialists selling or merging into the holding companies that we see today. And I think today, holding companies represent about 42% globally of all advertising investment. So the way I would describe it is integrated specialism. That's quite an oxymoronish term, integrated specialist, it's like a sensible Donald Trump. Say again, sorry? It sounds like a sensible Donald Trump, or a sane Boris Johnson. Well, there's a contradiction. Well, I think what we have to do is think about the customer. So our customer is clients' advertisers. And what our clients want more than anything else is simplicity. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had where I say to a client, what's on your mind? What do you need? What do you want? And always somewhere near, if not top of their list, is I need more simplification. Things are too complicated. So I think that's the first thing. I think the second thing I would say about the customer is all clients are different. Some clients operate in one market, some clients operate in one category, one product. And then we have others that are multifaceted and global. So I think really what I'm trying to say is there is no one size solution that fits all. Fair enough. Because our business is client centric. It's their needs centric. It's their business centric. Since you talk about clients, clients have started to look at big four. So they've gone beyond media agencies for marketing investments for the first time. If not investments, they've gone for advice, consulting. They've gone for strategy. And media agencies or media investment companies on behalf of clients are not only competing with other media agencies, but they're competing with consulting companies. In that context, how are the needs of clients or the expectations of clients changing? And why is the media agency better equipped to serve those needs better than let's say a big four? Okay, okay. I mean, I would add a list of that competitors. So it's not just consultants we're competing against. We're actually competing against clients when we think about in housing, which I'm sure we'll come on and actually talk about. But if I think about what are the clients asking for to answer your question? What the clients are asking for is first of all growth. So how do we grow our business? Secondly, how can we use our data, particularly our customer data, our first party data in the most intelligent way to deliver business outcomes for us, to help us grow our business? And really, therefore, we are very focused on how we actually do that and how we bring together the various parts of a client's business and their marketing services organizations in an integrated way to deliver them the best business outcomes. I think if you look at agencies versus consultancies, I think consultancies are at an earlier stage in their journey. I will always argue if I take Mediacom, I mean, we have 120 offices in 85 countries, 9,000 people who are really totally engaged in finding the best and the right communications for our clients. And consultancy is one thing, and I will come back and talk about that. But implementation and execution are vital. And specialist knowledge. And specialist knowledge. Sure. Now, since you talked about, again, client and in your opening comments, you talked about client's expectations from a whole group, right? And Charles is there in Kans in a global conversation. The brand custodian of Volvo said, and he said specifically when it comes to WPP, we'd rather work with somebody at the whole core structure who understands our brand, our objective, our perspective and kind of have one person dealing with us and then following it down to, so while I'm going back to that debate of specialization versus holding company consolidation. So give us a real example of how you've done it for one or two clients. Okay, so I mean, recently, we actually won, there was a couple of pictures actually. I can think recently we won the Centrica Business Globally. That's an energy company. We also won the global business for eBay. In the case of Centrica, we actually formed a team that was called Team Nucleus, which was made up not just of Mediacom, but the and partnership doing creative work and Wonderman Thompson doing CRM. I think and fairly similar structure actually also on eBay. But I think how we're also bringing it together and nowhere is there a better example than here in Mumbai is through the WPP campuses. So we just opened and we're currently in the stages of moving for those that don't know to Bay 99. And basically that will bring together 4,000 people in Mumbai. We will also be having a campus too in Delhi opening at a later point soon. And the plan across WPP by 2023, we will have something like 85,000 people situated or co-located, I should say, in 50 campuses. And I think that brings unrivaled knowledge and the ability for people to work in a very close and tight knit fashion as a team. You know, since we're talking of how the expectations of our clients are changing, their needs are changing because you just said that we look at very specific approaches for specific clients and their need. When you talk to a big four CEO, he or she talks of digital transformation. They don't talk of digital media investments. Now digital transformation is a buzzword that is used very loosely. Where million millennials are engaging with all services and products digitally and only digitally in some cases. Tell us what is MediaCom done to be a partner for digital transformation? And generally, do you think media agencies are suited to be digital transformation partners who serve as the other service providers? Sure answers, yes. Why? Because we're doing it. Because we're delivering incredible results for our clients. I don't think, as I said before, that we are, it's interesting. I must tell you because of Charles before, something that reminded me. So last week, we had an internal meeting and Jim Hackett, who Charles may know, is the current chairman and president of Ford. He said something quite interesting and he said that he said, often my competitors are calling me a dinosaur. He said, that doesn't annoy me. He said, what annoys me? He said, is that they think that they think that I'm not doing something about it, that I haven't recognized the change and that we aren't making our own progress. And there's another point just to come on to the customer centricity, because he gave an interesting example actually about, I don't know how many of you know Peloton. If you hands up, if you know Peloton. Okay, so Peloton is an exercise bike. It's an exercise bike that connects people from all around the world into classes. It's brilliant. That company is about to fetch a valuation of $8 billion. Think about that, $8 billion for an exercise bike. And what was interesting about that was, it wasn't about how do we make a better bike. It was about how do we make a better customer experience. Sure. So the point there is not about technology for technology's sake. It's about actually what you do with technology and data. I could give you a couple of examples of that if you want. Sure, you know Srinivas speaking at our business world, with another business product that we have. And his presentation was not so much about media. It was a lot about the business environment, and then he came to the brand and business. And one of the things he talked about almost everything you're talking of. One of the challenges for media agencies is the remuneration structure from clients. It has been under pressure over the last five to seven years. And one of the reasons we are talking about digital transformation and media plus and consulting and non-traditional areas of remuneration is because the traditional media planning buying business is under pressure on fees. And I'm being polite about that. It's been under pressure. So tell us in India, it has become a sub five percent. Again, I'm being liberal, number in most cases. Do you see revenues from non-traditional services, which is beyond media planning? In the next three years, outstripping the revenues that you have from media planning. So media planning gets you an entry, but then you do a lot more, which is beyond media planning buying. No, I think what we're seeing is a shift. And it's been a shift that has been going on now for many years. But our core business of planning and buying media, if you like, is still there. And it may surprise you. I don't know, but certainly at MediaCom, and that includes MediaCom in India, is growing. That could be for a variety of reasons, including maybe winning market share. But the add-on areas. So particularly if I think about consultative areas of our business, content areas of our business, analytics and data's areas of our business are definitely growing. There's no question. And just on the in-housing piece for a moment. I saw an interesting piece of independent research last week. So because I know there's a lot of talk about in-housing, and that's obviously true in India as well. And the statistic that I saw was that 27% of advertisers, this is globally, 27% of advertisers are considering thinking or intending to bring programmatic buying in-house. The number who are thinking about bringing media planning and buying in-house is 17%. So I think there's a threat there. But I don't think we're talking about the destruction of our business. Sure, I didn't suggest that. I just said that the margins are in depression. And hence, you need to find alternate sources of bridging the gap. Yeah. And I think what we have been increasingly doing certainly at MediaCom is moving what I would call people might term more upstream. And I think a great example of that is our partnership with Mars. So Mars is a client that we globally won about one and a half years ago. And I would say it's a partnership in the truest sense of the word. So aside from doing the basics, we are really at their side with them looking all around the world at new technologies, which has been well-publicized under what they call operation launch pad, being their rise and their rears, and thinking with them not just about media transformation but business transformation. And market entry. Absolutely. One of the things, again, I was chatting with a WPP leader and he said, I asked him, what are the three top areas from where non-traditional revenues will come? And he said sports, e-commerce, and digital transformation in general. I mean, digital transformation applies to, but he talked sports is a big area where more and more clients are investing money. Second is e-commerce. And third, he talked about the fact that they are consulting mandates for digital transformation. And they may lead to downstream work of actually doing it, which we may set up in-house or subcontract. So these are the three areas in India. What are the areas globally that you see where media agencies are well suited to be the advisors of future? I would say definitely around data and data analytics or even business science, some people would call that, definitely around content. So that's content creation and distribution. And now increasingly, we're talking about real time or dynamic creative, which is really about having not hundreds but even thousands of messages going out at the same time to different components of a client's or advertiser's target audience and refreshing and changing that actually as it's actually happening. I would say also content in the broader sense of the word in terms of entertainment is an area that has actually been of huge growth for us inside WPP. Sport is interesting. You mentioned sport before. I would say largely the holding companies as a whole have probably been less dominant, less influential than the IMGs of this world and other well-known sports companies that you would name. And actually when I think about, I mean, India is a great example, but all around the world, many advertisers will invest as much, maybe even sometimes more, in sport than they do for paid-for media. But I think one of the important things for us as we move forwards and we think about our future is we have to be more automated, so more efficient. And actually I think our focus is increasingly being on what I would call quality media, particularly in a digital world where environments can be less safe and there are obviously always questions around viewability. So, so we're thinking about that and I think the important thing there is about buying for our clients' audiences rather than eyeballs. And what that means is actually spending money on people that actually are the relevant people that may have some intent to purchase or should have some intent to purchase. So I would say to agencies, agencies, the agencies that will be under threat of the agencies that are not talking about what we would call source of growth or not, as I said before, talking on that other matter. Now, just to give you an example of that, I was really quite proud last week that we won an award at the M&M Global Awards for some work that was done here in India We called the campaign Cradle of Health and it was for P&G Pampers. And the insight here was, and I didn't know this, but in India, the penetration of diapers used for newborn babies is 10%. So in the UK it would be nearer 100%, so 10%. And so when we thought about, well, source of growth, in this particular instance, it was almost the opposite. What was the obstacle to growth? And the obstacle to growth, which makes me laugh, was the mother-in-law. All with it, all with it. Yeah, well, always. The mother-in-law telling the daughter-in-law what she did for her son and how actually diapers run healthy and not the way to go. So that was a brilliant insight. And we tackled that through actually talking in a really direct and clever way to the mothers explaining the health benefits, going out, doing workshops, getting government involved, the result of which that penetration of diapers went up by 5%, which was very impressive. Fantastic. So it's market creation in some sense. It's not just advertising, it's market creation for clients. You know, because of your global role and having seen the three, four major growing markets that are growing in the world, what do you think is unique about India and why India will do well and better than every other market? Do you know, I'm pleased you asked me that. So one of the reasons I was here this week, other than I'm very honoured to be here with you, was that we were meant to be having a global board meeting this week in Mumbai. Unfortunately, we had to move it, but I still came. But and the reason we wanted to do a global board meeting here was as much for me to give a kind of kick to my global team to talk about and to think about India. Because I think it's a remarkable market with enormous potential. When you talked before about growth or slow down of growth, we have to look for our own source of growth. I talked about that before for our clients. And the incredible thing about India, I mean, there are several things that strike me. First of all, your GDP growth, even if it slowed down a little bit in recent months, it still makes you the fastest growing major market in the world. You've had a GDP growth seven, eight percent the last few years. First thing, second thing, if I look at your the advertising investment as a percentage of GDP, in this markets, it's 0.33 percent. In a market like China, it's 0.7 percent. So it can double. Yeah. I mean, and many other markets. The global average is 1.25 percent. Exactly. So I think, you know, as agricultural areas and other people come into your consumer economy increasingly and will come on to Ecom because that's going to help too. So then I think about digital penetration. OK, so in the UK, 60 pennies in every pound, 60 percent of advertising investment goes online. In the US, it's 53 percent. In India, it's 22 and a half percent. It's 25 now. OK, I won't argue the two, but 25. But so you are still in the middle of a digital revolution. Sure. I think also when I think about e-commerce. So right now today, e-commerce here in China is about 3 percent of purchases. That's going to go up rapidly. And it was interesting to see Amazon setting up an enormous center in Hyderabad, which is a sign of intent. I know you've got Flipkart here, interesting the deal that they did with Walmart. But I would say to you, don't underestimate Amazon. But the level of growth opportunity when I add all of that up together is really fantastic. And it's a place, I think, where agencies like ours can prosper and still enjoy significant growth. You know, I would agree with you that I think in my personal view, as somebody watches this space, I think Amazon was very smart. I think Walmart overpaid for Flipkart. And I said this publicly, we said it in a publication. But I think it's about they let Walmart pay more. You know, what Walmart makes of it in the future, who knows? Maybe they'll make it work. They have to make it work. They put 15 billion dollars. That's a lot of money. So it also showcases the importance of India. But unlike the Chinese investors, the Chinese investors are the smartest investors. They always invest at the end of the valuation cycle. Whereas the American investors have invested at the top of the valuation cycle. In fact, in most cases, the American funds have created the valuations because they themselves invested, whether it's Tiger and we can go down. They've always, the Chinese wait for the market to slow down. Chinese are investing as we speak more than anybody. And I know it below my other head. So I think I agree with you that Amazon is the smarter one because they'll do what possibly Walmart did in 15 billion dollars, in 2, 3 billion dollars in better. And then there are integration issues, culture issues and so on and so forth. So I think I agree with you that Amazon's bets in India are getting bigger. That shows that India is a very big market, even Walmart's bet. These are good indications of where. And what was interesting, if I'm correct, I saw that Amazon even will invest in bricks and mortar here in India initially and then evolve with the market. And I think you're right about valuations. I mean, the multiples, our shareholders could only dream and dribble about. But I think, if you think about Amazon, I mean, it has a market capitalization of almost one trillion dollars. And really up until only three years ago, it wasn't barely making a profit, but it's about the future and people are buying future growth. Yeah, now coming to my last question and we'll bring the audio. From the time we started exchange for media, this is the 19th conclave. We've been talking about, again, the at least last eight, 10 years, the convergence of Silicon Valley, which is really technology, with Hollywood, which is content, and Madison Avenue, which is advertising. Our business, which is the business of media planning, buying, investing on behalf of clients, communication, has really in some way not being impacted by convergence. Madison Avenue, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood coming together. How has that changed our business? You talked about content briefly. Well, I think, I mean, we're seeing it manifest itself in many ways. I mean, we're seeing a time. We're seeing a convergence of platforms and content owners. We've seen some very big acquisitions and mergers. And if I just think for a moment about, I mean, OTT, really interesting here in India. So again, I saw a figure that the growth in OTT, so that streaming has been something like 30, something percent. I saw a figure just yesterday in the US, so streaming in the US has grown in the last year by 33%. The important point being now that in the US, 14% of homes up from 11% a year ago, 14% of homes are getting their television or their AV or their program content through OTT. So that's another interesting point, particularly here in a very, what I would say, content-driven origination market that you have obviously in India. An example is Sanjay Gupta from Star is there. They're trying to take Hot Star as a very successful example of what OTT can do. Of course, they have top-notch content, but they're taking the Hot Star to other markets because it's been such a big success, so we agree. I would like to get the audience to ask one or two questions. And my question I already asked in terms of technical, I want to ask you, what is your one prediction for future for our business? Just one. If you had to say something that is really going to change our business, what would that be? I would say that all media will become addressable, which will mean that all addressable media becomes programmatic. And that's good or bad? I think, I don't want to avoid that. I don't want to avoid that. I think it's good and bad. So, and I just let me say why, okay? I think it's good because anything that automates and takes boring stuff away, allowing our people, my people, to be more creative is a great thing. More innovation, more great campaigns like we've seen today. I think it's only bad in the sense that we know that machines can play tricks, so we have to invent new machines to kind of foil the other machines. But overall, I think a good thing. Anyway, by 2034, which is 15 years from now, we predict singularity where machines will be as smart or as intelligent as humans or more. So that singularity moment could happen faster. Won't take them 15 years to catch up with me. Yeah, I mean, as of now, that's the prediction today, who it possibly will happen faster. So I'd like to wrap up. If there are any questions, we can take one or two questions. Mr. Balsara, any question? Mr. Srinivas, any question? Any comments? Mr. Gupta? Anybody else wants to ask? So, Nazia is telling me to wrap up the thing. Please give Mr. Allen a big round of applause. Thank you very much. Thank you. It's been an honest conversation. At least you've been honest and you bring a huge experience of across the globe and building something from scratch. You've been entrepreneurial in building MediaCom. I know it's part of WPP, but still to grow it at the pace it's growing takes entrepreneurial zeal. So we congratulate you from Exchange for Media and we look forward to more interaction. Thank you for being at the Exchange for MediaCom. Thank you.