Welcome. Today we're talking about the genesis of U32, Union High School District number 32, a rural supervisory union district that was formed in the 60s with the school opening in the fall of 1971. I'm Betty Keller. I went to U32 starting as an eighth grader when it opened and I now live in St. John'sbury and I have with me here today a guest, Alice Blatchley, the mother of one of my friends, two of my friends at U32 and she served on the school board. So she has the perspective of a community member, a taxpayer, a voter, a mother, and a school board member. And so we're going to have a conversation today about how did we come up with this idea of starting up such a progressive school in the middle of central Vermont in the 60s in a rural area. Thank you so much for being with us today, Alice. I'm delighted. It's great to see you again. It's been a number of years since I've seen you. And so could you talk a little bit just to get us started talking about central Vermont in the 60s, a lot of farmers, some people worked in Montpelier for the government, people worked in school systems, hospitals, whatever. What kind of culture was there and how did we end up with a school like this? Well, it's an awfully good question. And I remember asking the same thing and my friends do. This is amazing. I mean, this school, it just seemed to just come out of nowhere because certainly, well, Vermont had originally the one-room schools, which were marvelous. I've heard about them and I do think that they provided a really fine education. The teachers had to be very creative. They had to be very resourceful. The children learned from each other. The younger ones would listen in. There were no walls at all and the grades weren't separated. So if that was just in hearing, I've known people who went through that system and I've been impressed. Even when I first came, I remember how impressed I was, how well-spoken and how well they listened and thinking for themselves. These are people who thought for themselves. And I just thought that in some ways, those one-room schools embodied some of the principles of progressive education. They had to use whatever resources they had at hand if they didn't have, it was very little money. So sometimes take a serious robot catalog and use that as a kind of for scrapbooks or to make almost mosaics of things. I mean, just, you know. Then they graduated from that, of course, to the graded system and elementary schools in each town and so on. And of course, at that time, most towns didn't have high school, many of the smaller towns. So they would tuition their students. But the students had a choice of any school, any high school, like you could go in our area in Montpelier High School, you could go to Spalding and Barrie, or you could even go, some people went to St. John'sburg Academy, you could go there. Oh, really? I hadn't heard that one mentioned. I've heard Hardwick mentioned, and Northfield High School. I'm not sure just when that started, but yes, you could go to St. John'sburg. And, you know, so there was a lot of choice there. But I think it was the reasons for consolidating probably were largely economic. I mean, that was the way that kind of the school, the Department of Education went around discussing this among the voters and pointed out that by consolidating, you know, it would be more economic, ordering supplies and doing all that kind of thing. And that also, there were new, well, you know, there was new ideas in the air throughout the country, new, there was progressive ideas, the more wealthier districts in the country had more progressive, that idea was taking hold. And I think Vermont was a little slower to learn that. Right. So maybe a little background for our viewers is that when we're talking about the towns, we're talking about East Montpelier, Middlesex, Worcester, Berlin, and Callis. And so Montpelier is smack in the middle of that, then East Montpelier and Callis, Berlin, Middlesex, and Worcester. So they were all surrounding Montpelier. So a good number of people did choose to send their children to Montpelier, mostly for transportation. There was no busing. So parents had to figure out how do I get my high school kids to school. When they got to be juniors or seniors, they might be able to drive or they might have a friend who could drive them. We had to afford an extra car if that were the case. But so a lot of choosing the school wasn't based on the educational philosophy or what was the best match for my kid's learning style. It was more about how can I get my kid to school. And so people in Berlin might go to Northfield, for instance, people in East Montpelier or Callis might go over to, it may have been Plainfield High School before Twinfield was started. That's true. Quite a few went to Hardfield. And then, and the Hardwick is north of there, so there was a school up there that people went to St. John'sbury Academy. That would be a hike. And I don't know how many of those kids ended up living in dormitories. Yes, I don't know. But basically the towns would pay the tuition to whichever school the family chose. And then the student would go there with the parents' responsibility to get them there. Well, some students actually boarded. I mean, in the old days, that's what they did. There were two women from Callis who they were the only ones in there. They were from the Adamant region. The only ones who wanted to go to high school, so they went on and they boarded with a family, each of them. And it had jobs to do. They had to wash dishes or maybe look after the kids. Boarded where? To Montpelier High School. And they would come back and visit their families over the weekend, the farm families. And believe it or not, these women walked 12 miles, no matter what the weather. On Monday morning to get there? Absolutely. I've talked to them. Yes, I said, you really did? Even when it was late at night or 50 below zero or something, she said, oh yeah, we were used to it. I couldn't get over that. These were trust people in those days. Right. This is before we had school busing. My husband, I remember, used to get picked up by the mail carrier to be taken to the Mabel Corner School. And then, I forget what was worked out for when he went to Woodbury, before he went to Berlin. But during high school, his father drove him there in the morning and went to work. And then he went and hung out at Kellogg Hubbard Library after school until his father could pick him up and take him back. I was speaking with Houghton Cate's son, Richard Cate. And he said that from his perspective, it was his life to just accept that he couldn't be on any teams, beyond any theater programs or anything. That's right. No extracurricular. Because he couldn't get home afterwards. You know, he had to go with one time, he could catch a ride. And if he didn't get that ride, that was it. And so even if, for students from the area, from those small towns, even if they did have a reliable transportation, the coaches and advisors of these groups kind of took it for granted that they couldn't count on them. So these kids would pass it over for parts. And I think that was a very strong reason for wanting to consolidate and have those towns too. It wasn't really fair. Right. So one thing is they could participate more in those extracurricular activities. The other thing is that the townspeople could vote to fund the busing because you weren't voting on Montpelier's budget, and you weren't getting input with your own school board member to make a decision to add busing to the Montpelier budget. So that was never really a choice. So now they would have control over being able to have a voice on how their kids could get there. Busing, of course, being a huge problem. Yes. And then you're talking about after school and again after activities. So that's an expense. Right. So to get back, I just wanted to kind of give that background to get back to more about the beginnings of the school. Where did these ideas come from? Well, I don't really know because I wasn't on the original school board. I joined it in was 72, 73. Somewhere right in there. Yeah. But I just know, well, I know what Rosendo Cueto, otherwise known as Rosie, would tell me about this. Of course, the board had to hire a principal. They chose this man, Bill Grady, from New Jersey, who happened to be a very dynamic guy and very much devoted to the principles of progressive education. And so he had all these great ideas that were being done in the New Jersey schools. And so I guess the board, just like what they heard, and they had other choices, but they did decide to go with what he suggested. And so that had a lot to do with it. But I give the board a lot of credit for being very open-minded. They did not want to just do things the same old way. We wanted something. It must be. I mean, I wasn't there then, but it was a fresh start. And we want to have these children to have all the advantages that they can have, you know, the best kind of education so that we'll prepare them the best for the world they're going to be working in and going to be actually, you know, being running, I mean, in a way. And so he worked with them. And one of the things they did, the school was the plans for the architectural plans are already drawn up, but he wanted them to look at a few schools that he hadn't, so that they knew they had options for what kind of school would be. And one of the schools they went to was a school in Maine. And Rosie said, we looked, we saw these children. They were some fluidity moving back and forth between classes. And it was very open. And the atmosphere in the school was altogether different from anything. They weren't sitting in chairs all looking at the student. It was not authoritarian. They run. They weren't just, you know, taking dictation or always saying back what the teacher had said, anything like that. Each child was very busy at something purposeful that they had planned, helped to plan themselves. And they were able, though, to learn a lot just from interacting more with the others and seeing what other people were doing. And they all said, that's what we want. Every single member of the school board said, he said, we want that kind of a school. Now, that was pretty darn good. That's pretty interesting. So let's talk a little bit about that school board. So this had to be a few years before the physical building was built and the staff were hired to go in. Now, I'm not sure exactly when they would have hired Grady. Sounds like they were hiring him for at least some consulting, even though the school wasn't built and he wasn't working as a principal. He could have been a consultant. Yeah, and I don't know. I don't know any of him. He's the only one. But before the building had the finishing touches on it, certainly he was consulted. Well, yes, and he did make some changes to the, and they they endorsed that. Go ahead and make whatever changes to the physical layout to, I don't know whether it was his idea or the school boards, but probably, I don't know, but he wanted the library to be at the center. Library shouldn't be off somewhere. That should be the the the nerve center almost of the school. And I totally felt as a student that that was the heart of the school. Yeah, and he wanted it to be very open. People could pass through. You didn't have to be in a place where you had to be so quiet. I mean, not that anybody was loud, but I mean, you were there to study, you were there to learn, but you could and actually it had a nice rug and students are actually allowed to sit on the rug and study. That was, of course, a bone of contention among those people who were very upset with the school because it was so non-traditional. It was a shock.  I mean, seem disrespectful to the teachers and so on. So each town had one, two or three members on the school board that they voted in. So of these five towns, they each chose people who participated on the school board and those people who went to Maine all appreciated and were enthusiastic about this new model of learning. Yeah. So just to talk a little bit about those towns. So East Montpelier and Callis were actually close to Plainfield, which is where Goddard College is. That's right. And so there would be, there would be faculty who were living in some of those towns, for instance, as well as the, you know, the farmers and everybody else who's there. So can you talk a little bit about some of these other school influences, the new school you had mentioned to me earlier? Just talk a little bit about some of those, maybe? Yeah. All right. So I think it was a rather remarkable board. I, as I say, I wasn't on the original board. I came on just a year or two after it started. Right. When Rosie, it was a remarkable group of people. We had Houghton Cate from East Callis, a very fine man. I mean, everybody said Houghton Cate is just one of the finest people I've ever met. And Rosendo Cueto, who was, and he told me that he originally, I'm not sure how he got on, but he was interested in civic affairs, always very involved. And he just, I say remarkable, I think, because they were open-minded enough to, I mean, they had very set ideas, but they were willing to listen and to be, have their minds changed. I mean, and so. So there was a Mr. Magnet, Charlie, what's it called? Magnet. Okay. These are hardworking people who believed that you should take part in community affairs, that you had a responsibility, civic responsibility, took very seriously. All. Yeah. So, but in any case, they represented, the districts they represented were quite different. Berlin, the, we, there was a member there, was it one or two? Let's see, Ruth Town was from East Montpelier, I guess. She was later though. She wasn't on the original board. Oh, she was, came on. So, at the first, the board, they liked Mr. Grady's ideas and so on everything, but it, at some point, and this was the point at which I got on the board, I was asked to run by some people who were really concerned that the school's philosophy was in danger, in danger of losing it, because I think partly because of the, the, maybe there were cost overruns, people were concerned, particularly in Berlin for some reason, maybe because there were more persons who were concerned about property taxes rising, there was a large people who, well, there was trailer parks and so on. I don't know if that had something to do with it. I mean, people who really could not afford much. Yeah. So, I had a hypothesis on that too. I think that Berlin may have been earlier than some of the other schools on having a regular graded system with a lot more structure. They were, yeah. And like, like Callas, in any case, still had the one room schoolhouse. I just was told that, so the, it began to, this groundswell of opposition began to get very serious and unfortunately the anger and the stuff all fell on to Bill Grady. He was the magnet for it. He took a great deal of, I mean, it was very difficult. People were very, very upset and what they, they centered on some of the things they really objected to with the fact that the children were allowed to call the teachers by their first names. Yeah. That just seemed wrong. I think they were concerned about the emphasis on the arts, music and arts and so on as not being a good preparation for life, for having job. They were very concerned about being able to get a job. From what they'd heard about progressive education, well, don't just do whatever they've a mind. I've heard people say something like that. But I mean, actually, if you think about it, the point of progressive education is to prepare the kids, really prepare them for life. They learn to think for themselves. That's what you're going to have to do. And the whole, as a matter of fact, now as we see a whole economic thing has changed so that you don't have a job for life. It's all of that. So you really need to be able to think on your feet and to be able to integrate ideas and be, well, let's say, think for yourself. That was really important. Right. I think, yeah, a lot of concern was the lack of structure so that students... They were worried. Yes. Students were able to choose their classes or they could choose to have more free time as long as they got enough credits in. And actually, there was some cause for concern because the, this was an ideal school for some kids. Some kids were well prepared for it. My son, Tom, he had gone to a very progressive elementary school. It was one that was open, formed by some parents who wanted something different for their kids. And it was a while, public school kids could go there. We had very few people who wanted to do that. We did have one student, I remember. But he learned there, I mean, just to figure out for himself what he wanted to do. And so one of the teachers said to me, your son is the son... I mean, this school was made for something like that. He knew what he wanted to do. There was free time. He usually would use it playing chess. And the teachers there... I mean, chess is really very good for your mind. Developing strategy. Yeah. And so on. Or you could watch a film, apparently. You didn't have traditional study halls with somebody over there making sure that the students had to learn to discipline themselves and take responsibility for themselves. The idea being, they're going to have to learn that. You've got to learn to take responsibility. Why not start learning it in school? Why wait? What are you preparing them for, if it's just road learning? But then there were some students, and students, of course, tend to group together like people, like themselves. So there were some people and students, I don't know how many, but they would tend to isolate themselves from the others. They didn't understand what to do. They weren't prepared for that much freedom. And so on. So I'm not the best one to say what happened there, because I think it was a problem for some time. And the teachers had to figure out how... They worked about it. They were concerned about it. The whole school was concerned. And so because that's exactly what you didn't want. You didn't want people going off into their separate... You wanted all the students from all different backgrounds and everything to mingle together and for the program to be good for everybody. So in any case, but I think the central thing about that school, the thing that ultimately sold it to the parents and to the kids themselves, was the teacher-advisor system. This was an innovation on Bill Brady's part. I don't think any of the school had it. When the student enters, they get a teacher-advisor who will sort of see them, talk with them, and help them sort of make the best use of the school for their... Figure out all kinds of things.  But they're not quite sure how to negotiate things, how to manage. And so they need someone, an older person who will be their friend, really be their friend, and almost like their advocate, help them to make the best possible use of the school, and get to know their parents. That was the thing. There was a teacher, Gene Overgrozicki. He was terrific. And he would go and pretty much invite himself to have dinner with the family. And he did... I remember there was a schoolboy member, Bob, I can't remember his last name. He said his son used to hate school. It was such a chore trying to get him to go to school. But Gene, he had Gene for a teacher-advisor. And Gene would go home and sit with them, and have dinner and stuff. And he noticed, he, Bob, noticed that he really liked going to school. And he was doing so much better. He was learning math, which had always been something he couldn't seem to get. Because here was somebody who was interested in him and caring about him and what he thought and just helping him do. He said it made all the difference. And he said, that's what sold me on the school. He said I was deltful. I was skeptical. But after when I saw what it did for my son, he said, you know, that's absolutely... So Gene was going... He said at first, well, I was a little deltful because Gene had a macrame belt.  But he said, well, I figured out the belt wasn't very important. He was great. Always people. Now, even now, there was one who it was kind of a... It became very polarized when I got on. And I was told that. And I said, look, we're worried because the parents who are used to more progressive school, who would come from somewhere else, many of them, some of them, you know, a teacher said, Goddard, which has a very progressive philosophy coming from Dewey, John Dewey's philosophy, you know, learning by doing and so on. And they said there was... The opposition was very strong. And we were really afraid that somehow or other there would be a vote to turn the school's philosophy back to eliminate all of the good features. And we were worried for our children and just thought it would be a shame. So I got on because I was very progressive. And I did have to... I went around and talked to people. And I went on with the express purpose of really trying to fight for what the school was doing and to try to help people see how positive it was. So when you say to fight for what the school was and to maintain that philosophy, does that mean that you were going out and talking to more parents who you knew were opposed to it to try to help? No, no, it was just... We had to... At school board meetings, you know, we had to decide on kind of all these issues. And so I just wanted to represent the point of view that felt the school was really something worth saving that was really good for the school and that the answer, the objections, but talk about the real issues. There was a tendency for people to kind of attack this budget. That would be one way to get it. And I mean, some of the opposition was kind of hard to really argue about it. But you could state your point of view and and don't back down, but listen to the others. And we had to all learn to do that, which we actually did, which was surprising. Because I remember there was one member, Ruth Town, and I was kind of warned. I said, you will find it very difficult to deal with. And she was indeed, because she was very so sure that she was right about this and that and the other, that children are not going to learn anything. And this is terrible. I think she took her own son out of the school because she was afraid it was just going to... It was a terrible kind of education. I'm not quite sure how, but I know that we ended up good friends. I came to realize that some of us, though, I agreed with her. And there was one thing that we had in common. We both cared passionately about education, about our children. She cared passionately about education. And so did I, from different points of view. And that was really good. And I said that to her. And I said, well, you know, when I could agree, I did. And that was a revelation to me that you could, and I think to her, too, you could disagree very much, but you could still respect each other. I love that. I want to end on that note. That is so wonderful that you can disagree, but find your common ground that you both have this passion that you care about, and you're going to work together, even though you disagree. Wonderful. I wish we could all do that today. So thank you so much for joining me today, Alice. And thank you for listening. And we'll be having more conversations on this and carrying on with Alice, the conversation, but also with others. Thank you so much for joining us. Initially, in 1967, Union 32 included Montpelier, East Montpelier, Calis, Middlesex, and Worcester. In 1968, Montpelier withdrew, and Berlin moved from Union 31 to Union 32. The trip to Maine in February of 1968 was to look at how a district with similar demographics worked, with a central larger town surrounded by rural towns, while Montpelier was still in the union. The field trip to see a progressive school in action was to New Hampshire. The composition of the board at the time of these field trips was nine members from Montpelier, two from East Montpelier, and one each from Calis, Middlesex, and Worcester. 12 of the 14 members visited the progressive school in New Hampshire and were favorably impressed. The other two, Bill Doyle of Montpelier and Bill Sargent of Worcester, who traveled later and spoke directly with teachers, were not happy with what they found. See Bill Sargent speak about it on the Genesis of U-32, the rural context. After Montpelier withdrew and Berlin joined, East Montpelier and Berlin each had two board members, and Calis, Middlesex, and Worcester each had one board member. No towns had three members. Ruth Town represented Berlin, her oldest son, Owen Town, attended Montpelier High School for grades 9 to 11, and then attended U-32, where he was in the first graduating class in 1972. He shares his perspective in, from Berlin's Berry Road Schoolhouse to Zoo 32. He also contributes to the Genesis of U-32, the rural context. His younger brother Brad attended Montpelier for a year, then U-32, and then transferred back to Montpelier High School.


So, we have now more information about the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago. I don't know that we have a huge amount of information, but we have some. We have the actual document that specifies why they're going in, the wants, and we have a list of the materials that were recovered in the home in Mar-a-Lago. It's hard to tell at this point, again, how serious any of this is, you know, what the nature of these documents really is, how bad the situation is. It also, I think, is yet to be determined to what extent the Biden administration went to try to get these documents before the raid, although it looks like they met with Trump people, they went to the villa, they took a bunch of stuff, they subpoenaed them, they tried to get all these documents on several occasions and did not get them, did not get the full support, and there are indications, again, we don't really know, that somebody close to the president instructed the FBI that there were still boxes of top-secret materials in the home being stored, being stored inappropriately, well, the fact that they were where they were was inappropriate, and actually disclosed the exact whereabouts of these documents, so that the FBI knew exactly where to search. Now, again, I don't know if any of that is true, but that is certainly the story coming out right now. I haven't seen Trump denying any of the idea that there were top-secret documents there, although he is insinuating that maybe some of these documents were planted by the FBI, that this is part of a big conspiracy to discredit him before the election, so that they are planting material. I think a lot of people believe that. I think a lot of people are trying to believe that. I mean, as I said the other day when we talked about this for the first time, the real tragedy here, I think, is that I don't trust either of them. I don't trust any of them. I mean, the FBI has shown itself to be untrustworthy over the last six years. The Justice Department has shown itself to be politicized over the last six years, politicized both by Democrats and by Republicans, although I will give bar credit for the fact that when it ultimately came to the ultimate act of politicizing the Justice Department, which would have been to claim that the election was stolen, Bar refused to do that and maintained at least that bit of his integrity, but not being willing to lie about the nature of the election. Although I suspect he had lied about all kinds of other things in the Justice Department before that. So we're in a situation, oh, and so that's on one side. We don't trust the Biden administration. We don't trust the Justice Department. I think justifiably. We don't completely trust the FBI. Again, I think justifiably, even though the head of the FBI right now was somebody that Trump appointed to that position after he'd fired the previous set of the FBI, it's somebody who, at least for the latter years of the Trump administration, I don't think caused Trump any problems from the FBI. So we don't trust the FBI. We don't trust the Justice Department. We don't trust the Biden administration. We generally don't trust the left because, again, there is this notion that they will do anything to maintain power. And while I think that's exaggerated, because I don't think they stole the last election, I think there's a lot of truth to it. This certainly is an aspect of it that is true.  But of course, the flip side is also true. I don't trust anything Trump says. And it's completely conceivable to me, given Trump's character and given Trump's behavior, that he might have taken top secret documents tomorrow. Who knows why? Partially for his own ego, maybe their documents that he could use. Suppose he wanted the documents taken was a memo or some kind of write up on the president of France. Who knows what Trump wanted to do with these documents, why he kept them. Maybe some of them related to him. Maybe some of them related to his behavior. I don't know. I don't know. Maybe they related to actions that the administration took or the military took or the CIA took or somebody took that Trump would rather not come to light. I don't know. But the point is, it's completely believable to me that any of that would happen. I don't know that it happened, but it's completely believable to me. And it does look like, and I don't think that these things were planted. I think that's unlikely. It's too easy to catch them. It's too easy to show that it's a lie. It does look like, and I don't know the nature of these. There's a box of, that there was a box of top secret material taken from Margo Lago. There was a box of secret material. There was a bunch of other stuff that just doesn't belong there. It belongs by law in different archives related to different departments of the government, including the National Archive. And it doesn't strike me at all as unlikely that Trump took those documents and didn't give a damn about the procedure or the law or the exact thing and just took them home and used them at home and said, screw you. I don't care. And he never thought it would be enforced. He never thought anybody would care. He never thought it was that important or that big of a deal. And even when, and this is what surprises me, if they'd already taken a bunch of top secret stuff from the home, if they'd already, you know, subpoenaed the stuff. And why didn't he just give it back? What is in there? That he is, is it just incompetence and stupidity? Is he trying to hide something? Or is it all made up by the FBI? And this is, this is the real challenge that we face. I mean, I was accused earlier of not being objective about, about Trump, something about, you know, how could I not be not objective? I am the ultimate objectivist of something ridiculous like that.  I'm trying to be objective, but it's really, really hot. Because to be objective about these things, and you know, I'm doing my best to be objective, but to discover the truth, to discover what's really going on, one needs reliable facts. One needs reliable evidence. And there is such a degree of distrust now that I think most of you haven't. And certainly I have towards the authorities and towards Trump, and towards anything comes out of Trump's mouth, and really anything that comes out of the authorities' mouth about these kind of things that it's very, very hard, it's very, very hard to know what it's true. Now, I can tell you what my, my, my suspicion is.   And maybe there's something in these documents that he would rather not come to light, so he wanted to protect them. And, but I think mostly it's incompetence. He probably had a bunch of stuff laying around in different places, and it wasn't too worried about it, and didn't care, and thought that just the problem was making a big deal out of this when it shouldn't be. And he was former president, so who the hell are they to even tell him where he can and cannot put the documents?  He wants to be able to keep whatever documents he wants. He wants to be able to use whatever documents he wants.  Will you to tell me what I can and cannot do? What I can and cannot fire? I mean, people who worked for him, he had that, I don't know if you read this, there's a new book out where he said to General Miley, I think, he said, why can't you generals be like Hitler's generals? Just support me with whatever I want, because he wanted a, you remember he wanted a parade on 4th of July, a big military parade through the streets of Washington, D.C., massive show off the power of the American military. He made a big deal out of this for about a year. He spoke about this a lot. And like the military didn't want this, and they were against it throughout, and he said to the generals, he said, why can't you guys be like the German generals? They did everything Hitler told them.  And Trump was like, no, no, they did everything he said. They loved Hitler. But that's what he wants. He said the same thing about, that he loved the fact that when Xi spoke, everybody stood up, everybody showed him respect, everybody, there was this amazing respect to Xi and to Putin and to Hitler, I guess. And that, I mean, I don't know if you really said that, but certainly that's what people are saying. That's what's in this book that he said, but it's completely reasonable to me to imagine Trump saying it. It's exactly his character. It's exactly who he is. So I can completely see him saying, I completely see him saying, you know, who is anybody to tell me what I can and cannot do with these documents? And so I think he's done that. I think the Justice Department was trying to clean this up and trying to get all the documents back. I think they'll also relish the opportunity to go after Trump and to humiliate them and to make him look ridiculous. I think that a lot of that is gonna backfire against it. Right? I think ultimately Trump is gonna benefit from this, not be heard by it. We'll see, but that's my impression. I also think that the Justice Department is headed by, what's his name? The former judge. And he's got it in for Republicans because if you remember, he was supposed to be the Supreme Court Justice that was gonna replace, I think Scalia, he was gonna replace Scalia and they refused to bring into a vote in the Senate. And he basically got denied his chance, Mary Garland got denied his chance of being a Supreme Court judge because of Republicans. And so you'd expect him to be quite bitter towards Republicans and try to get back at Trump. So I think that it's completely feasible that Trump has broken the law here and is doing stuff that is unprecedented in terms of other presidents. It's completely conceivable to me that the FBI and the Justice Department, at least some people in the FBI and Justice Department are just trying to clean this up and get to the bottom of it and follow the law. And it's also completely conceivable to me that this is being used by the political element within the Justice Department starting with Mary Garland to get back at Trump and to make Trump look as bad as possible and to score significant political points. All of that I think is all consistent and probably actually what's going on. And that's me being objective, trying to tease out what is actually going on here. Now, sadly, I think this is gonna help Trump, particularly in the Republican primaries. I'm not sure if this will help him win a general election. I'm not sure he can win a general election, but I do think it'll help him among Republicans. And that's a tragedy, because I think they're much better candidates out there than Trump who can win a general election and who can beat Biden. I think almost any Republican can beat Biden right now, except Trump. Trump is the one Republican who might lose an election. So, all right, that is my spiel. Thank you for listening or watching the Iran Book Show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening, you get value from watching, show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbrookshow.com slash support, by going to Patreon, subscribe star, locals, and just making a appropriate contribution on any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see the Iran Book Show grow, please consider sharing our content and of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.


Internal Revenue Service IRS Tax News. IRS announces update to the form 14457 Voluntary Disclosure Practice Pre-Clearance Request and Application. But first, an attempt at a joke, I apologize in advance. I tried doing taxes for a medical marijuana distributor, but the tax regulations were way too trippy, man. I just kept getting lost in the weeds. For example, that Purple Cush Credit, it's totally out there. I'm telling you, new marijuana laws these days, they're way too strong. What happened to the good old days when you can burn through a few weed regulations with ease, the mind's still clear enough afterwards to admire the garden? IR2022-33 February 15, 2022 Washington, the Internal Revenue Service announced today that form 14457 Voluntary Disclosure Practice Pre-Clearance Request and Application, there's a link to that here, has been revised including expanding a section on reporting virtual currency. So here it is, it looks like a crackdown here on the virtual currencies. The IRS sending out a warning that they're going after these items and you might then want to be reporting them taking preemptive action so that they go easy on you if you haven't been reporting in accordance with the law on the virtual currency. So form 14457 Permits Taxpayers who may face criminal prosecution for a willful violation of tax law to voluntarily disclose information to the IRS that they failed to previously disclose. So they're basically saying once the law goes into place and the people have not reported the income for it possibly with the use of some kind of virtual currency having exchanges that they didn't report their taxes on and so on and so forth, then the question is, well, how does the IRS take action on that? They would like to still basically say, we would like you to voluntarily give us the information, but after they're in violation, if you were to do that, then you would be basically admitting that you were in violation in the first place. So there's a disincentive after you've already been in that situation to then disclose the situation that you're in. So the IRS in that situation will typically try to say, hey look, if you tell us about it now, then we're gonna go easier on you possibly would be the general idea as opposed to if you don't tell us and you continue to go forward with not disclosing these transactions, we want you to disclose or are required to be disclosed by law and pay taxes on or whatever, then the penalties could be harder if we go after you in the future. And it looks like, of course, the IRS is trying to go after these kinds of transactions. These are one of these areas where the IRS is concerned that they don't have as much lockdown in terms of the reporting of items and revenue and so on. So updates and additions to this form include IRS criminal investigation now accepts photocopies, fax mail, fax similes and scans of taxpayer signatures. Taxpayers can send this form via eFax to<PHONE_NUMBER>. There'll be a link to this in the description if you want that number. So I won't read it multiple times to reduce mailing and processing times. Previously, part two of this form had to be mailed and expanded section of reporting virtual currency, a penalty structure for employment tax and estate and gift issues, a checkbox for inability to pay in full. The updates reflect input from practitioners and stockholders and take into account trends in the type of financial asset that taxpayers hold. Quote, this is an important form and process for people who recognize it's better step forward and address their tax situations head on before facing IRS enforcement action. And quote, said Doug O'Donnell, deputy commissional service of enforcement and enforcement services and enforcement. So obviously they're basically saying, hey, it's better for you to at this point in time, tell us about it now. If you haven't been reporting things that we think you should be reporting in this area of the virtual currency, which is a new kind of area that they're still trying to wrap their hands around and strangle it till it dies. But so that means that if you take the action first, then that would typically be better after they go in and they start investigating this further if they were to take action at that point in time. That would be the idea, I believe, or at least my interpretation of it. Quote, the revised form includes a number of updates and we encourage people to review the guidelines and consult a trusted tax professional. And quote, thousands of taxpayers have used the voluntary disclosure practice since its inception. It serves as a compliance option for taxpayers who have potential criminal exposure and wish to come into compliance with tax laws. Those making such disclosures are still subject to civil examination and the payment of all applicable taxes, interest, and penalties. So obviously if you didn't report some kind of taxes that you're supposed to be reporting, then if you report the taxes, the goal is not to avoid the pain of the taxes. You're still gonna have to pay the taxes on the revenue that you earned in accordance with the tax law, which you're trying to avoid is the action further and above that, which would include penalties, interest, and possible other actions for violating the tax law at that point in time. So taxpayers who did not commit any tax or tax related crimes and wish to correct mistakes or file delinquent returns should consider other options available to comply with their tax and reporting obligations. The IRS encourages taxpayers to consult with professional tax or legal advisors and determine which option is the most appropriate. So if it was like a mistake or something like that, because you're in an area that is kind of a new area with these virtual currencies and whatnot, then the question is what action should you be taking? Should you be taking this action, possibly just amending the return because you didn't report something that you should have been reporting in terms of income? Was it a mistake or was it intentional? And so what kind of action should you be taking at that point in time? By taxpayers voluntary disclosure must be timely, accurate, and complete. The taxpayer must also cooperate with the IRS in determining the correct tax liability and make full payment of the tax interest and any applicable penalties. Cooperation includes full payment of all tax interest and penalties. So again, obviously you're not gonna get out of the tax. That's not the point. If you hid the income that you're supposed to be reporting, then if you report it, then you're gonna pay the tax. You're gonna be in compliance with the law by paying the tax or setting up some agreement to pay the tax. You're trying to avoid the penalties and interest and other kind of punishments. They could be from, you know, evading the tax in some way or not reporting it and so on. So a taxpayer who is unable to make full payment may request the IRS consider other payment arrangements. If a taxpayer anticipates, they cannot pay the total amount of tax interest and penalties required. They must disclose this and submit a proposed payment arrangement and completed and executed collection information statement form 433A. So in other words, you're gonna then try to see if you can set up, in essence, a payment plan. I believe the 433A is basically a personal financial statement saying how much money that you have and how much money you bring in, like a balance sheet and an income statement so they can assess whether or not you can actually pay the taxes upfront and whether or not it's you deserve to have, you know, like a payment plan type of setup as opposed to simply being required to pay the taxes at that point. The burden is on the taxpayer to establish an inability to pay to the satisfaction of the IRS based on full disclosure of all assets and income domestic and foreign under the taxpayers control. For more information on the voluntary disclosure practice as well as other options to come into compliance with the law, please visit. There's links to these below. IRS criminal investigation voluntary disclosure practice. IRM 9511 investigative process, other investigations IRM 4633 withholding an international individual compliance offshore voluntary disclosure program, streamline filing compliance procedures and voluntary disclosure practice. So there's links to those items here. There'll be a link to this in the description.


The first item of business is portfolio questions. We start with rural affairs, land reform and islands. I invite members to ask a supplementary question to press the request-to-speak button during the relevant question. Members will be aware now of the new time limits, which will be rigorously applied to brevity and questions and responses. We will be welcome. 1. Christine Grahame To ask the Scottish Government how the measures in its programme for government 2023-24 will support the rural economy in Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale constituency. All Scotland-wide commitments in our ambitious PFG contribute to our rural economy, and there are a range of commitments within that that relate specifically to rural industries supporting jobs and businesses in constituencies such as Christine Grahame's. Those include paying Scottish farmers and crofters £550 million of payments beginning this month, investing £1 million in skills development for woodland creation and in nature in peatland restoration, and businesses and communities in the Midlothian, Tweeddale and Lauderdale area will also benefit from our PFG commitment to support the ambitions of the Edinburgh and South East Scotland city region to develop and implement their regional economic prosperity framework. Christine Grahame I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. Yesterday, of course, highlighted the debate on the contribution of our farming sector to our economy. Can I ask, given that many farmers are not as young as they used to be, what support is being given to encourage young people into the sector? First of all, I am delighted to be able to update Parliament this afternoon that, as promised in this year's programme for government, we have now started making our payments to farmers and crofters Two weeks ahead of schedule, initial payments worth approximately £288 million are now being paid into over 13,000 businesses all across Scotland, including in Christine Grahame's constituency. Unlike in England, we are ensuring that stability by maintaining direct payments, and in the coming year we will be paying Scottish farmers and crofters £550 million to support actions to produce food. However, Christine Grahame also rightly mentions and importantly mentions new entrants to the industry, and that is why we have another commitment within our programme for government that commits us to working with them to develop new support for new entrants going forward. Question 2, Donald Cameron. Can we have Mr Cameron's microphone? Could you perhaps take your card out and reinsert it, please, Mr Cameron? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I refer to my register of interests, both in terms of crofting and the fact that I am a member of the Faculty of Advocates? To ask the Scottish Government for what reason, its programme for government 2023-24 did not include a commitment to a crofting bill. The programme for government 2023-24 commits the Scottish Government to developing and consulting on proposals to reform crofting law. That is a key and necessary part of the process to develop and then introduce a bill, and we remain committed to doing so in this parliamentary term. Donald Cameron. Cabinet Secretary, I may be aware that crofting reform of some sort has been pledged by this Government in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2022 and now in 2023. Yet, in that time, there has been little movement despite calls for reform from crofting communities. What assurances can she give these communities that the most recent pledge will not end up in the long grass like the many pledges that have gone before it? I would disagree with the member because we committed to introducing a crofting bill this parliamentary term, and that is exactly what we have set out to do. In order to do that and consider the proposals that have been brought forward previously, we reintroduced and re-established the crofting bill group, and that has met 11 times so far with further meetings planned so that we can further develop those proposals. As I set out in my initial response, there is a process that we have to go through in developing legislation. That is why we have committed to introducing a consultation on the measures that we will be bringing forward for a bill. I look forward to seeing the bill that the minister has confirmed. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me, however, that it is quite difficult with respect for opposition parties to cast themselves as champions for crofting while they are content by their silence to allow their colleagues at Westminster to leave crofters totally in the dark over the future of ELFAS funding? Yes, I would agree with that. The imposed Brexit that we have had forced on us in Scotland means that rural Scotland in particular has been badly let down, because ELFAS or the funding to support those who need it most, farming and crofting in the most marginal areas that we have in Scotland might not matter to the UK Government, because after all it chose in the last cap not to provide that funding in England, but with over 80 per cent of all land in Scotland being in less favourable areas, it really does matter to us and particularly to our crofters as well. Now, multi-year certainty has been replaced with absolutely no commitment for funding beyond 2025, and that is as a result of the choices that were made by the UK Government and its refusal to deliver on its own public commitment to engage meaningfully on future budgets. The cabinet secretary will be aware that a crofting bill was promised in the last Parliament. The problems with crofting were caused by the previous bill, and we desperately need a bill to put right what was done wrong in that bill, so will she either repeal the previous bill or come forward immediately with a new bill because this is a dead hand on crofting? All of the issues that the member has highlighted and that have been raised previously are being considered by the crofting bill group. Again, it is our intention to provide that clarity in law to tidy up the current legislation and better regulate crofting. As I said in my previous responses, the crofting bill group was formally re-established in May of last year, and it is considering right now at least 50 different issues to determine which of those should feature in a bill that we bring forward. Of course, there will be that wider engagement and consultation on this and due course, and I look forward to engaging with members across the chamber as we develop this legislation. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of its proposed land reform bill. As set out in the programme for government, we are committed to introducing a land reform bill to further improve transparency of land ownership, help ensure large-scale land holdings delivered in the public interest and empower communities by providing more opportunities to own land and to have more say in how land in that area is used. The bill will also include measures to modernise agricultural holdings. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. My constituents on the island of Grape Bernara have been fighting for a number of years to buy their land from an uncooperative and entirely absent landowner who often leaves correspondence unanswered for months on end or ignores it altogether. Can the cabinet secretary outline whether there will be any provisions in the upcoming bill to prevent absentee landowners from delaying matters in this way? I am aware of the issues that Alasdair Allan raises in his question and I am also aware that he has supported his constituents for a number of years and indeed has led a member's debate on this issue and on the community group's situation. I absolutely understand and appreciate the frustration that I know both he and the people on Grape Bernara must feel at the situation that they find themselves in. I know that in Scotland of course we do have landowners who are focused on making a positive impact on their local communities and they work with them to do that. Of course that is not universal and I accept that there is more that the Government can do in this area, which is why our land reform bill proposals will seek to strengthen the obligations on landowners to comply with the land rights and responsibilities statement as well as looking to introduce compulsory land management plans. Trump international Gulf links in Aberdeensia has long faced opposition from local residents concerned about the social and environmental impact of the development. Under the Government's current land reform proposals a 560 hectare holding, like Trump international, would not be considered large and so would not be subject to a public interest test. Does the minister agree that land of this size should be accountable to local communities and the wider public? I know that the member is looking to bring forward proposals in relation to this and that the consultation for Mercedes Villalba's draft member's bill is just closed. Of course I look forward to fully considering that in the detail of her proposals. However we are not proposing a cap on land ownership because we are not persuaded that a cap is supported by the adequate evidence and a cap is unlikely to be compatible with the European convention on human rights as well. So these are the really vital considerations that we have to take cognisance of. So instead that's why our proposals seek to ultimately empower communities by providing more opportunities to own land by receiving that prior notification of impending sales or transfers as well as having more say in how land in their area is used. And our proposals will of course be fully compliant with ECHR and the terms of the devolved settlement too. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the greater use of farm-to-fork methods to encourage domestic food production. The Scottish Government is of course hugely supportive of greater use of farm-to-fork methods both to encourage domestic food production and consumption. As an example of that, £490,000 worth of funding is being provided through the Food for Life programme over the course of this financial year so that we have more locally sourced healthier food in schools as well as funding a Glasgow-based pilot on expanding the principles of the Food for Life programme into the wider public sector. And I think it's of course important and fantastic to be able to talk about some of these issues as well as the debate that we had yesterday and to discuss food and drink in Scotland to really celebrate our superb natural order during the current food and drink fortnight. I do agree that this is an important issue. So given that the European commission has softened its approach to gene editing technology over the summer, will the cabinet secretary not recognise, as the Scottish Conservatives do, that gene editing technology provides the best security for domestic food production in Scotland? I know that, based on the debate that we had about this in food and drink yesterday just in the chamber, the Tories seem to think that gene editing solves all the problems in relation to food production and food security going forward. However, the Scottish Government we're not in a rush to legislate in these issues as the UK Government was just to prove a point of difference and we have to fully consider all the factors in relation to this. Now that means having that discussion with our farmers, with scientists and importantly with our consumers as well before we decide how to move forward. And of course we will be looking at what's happening in the EU as that goes forward too. But unlike the UK Government, we like to take the time to consider these proposals fully and understand what the implications would be for Scotland. Very briefly, Karen Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Given the free trade agreements which threaten to harm domestic production and flood our market with imported goods of lesser quality, I find the question quite ironic. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that, given the Scottish Government's commitment to active farming and food production, the best thing the Tories could do to help ensure domestic food production is lobby their colleagues in the UK Government about funding clarity for the agricultural sector post 2025? As soon as possible, cabinet secretary. Absolutely, because right now we have absolutely no clarity on any long-term funding and what that's going to look like beyond 2025. Currently, the Treasury has only provided yearly allocations with no commitment beyond that. We need to know whoever is in power at Westminster how much funding we're going to have to support farming as well as other rural priorities, so I absolutely share the frustration that's been expressed by our farmers and food producers over the lack of future budget clarity. We also need a fair funding settlement that's not going to be cut arbitrarily from year to year by Westminster and to be able to create that multi-annual framework. We would, of course, get all of that if Scotland was independent and back in the EU. 6. Liz Smith To ask the Scottish Government what preparations it has made in response to the protractive start to the 2023 grain harvest. The Scottish Government supports farmers in preparing for, responding and adapting to challenging conditions over the course of the season by ensuring that timely and effective advice and support is available to informed decision making. That includes the SRUC crop protection report, which offers online free of charge regular analysis by region of current issues for a range of crops. That includes fortnightly local reports on the progress of the grain harvest over the season, which aids farmers in making informed decisions for their crops. It also includes the farm advisory service, which facilitates access to largely free, high-quality, generic and bespoke advice for the agricultural sector. Liz Smith Thank you. The cabinet secretary will know, however, that that information is showing that has not been an easy start to the 2023 grain harvest, not just because of the delays, but because of poor quality in some crops. That's particularly true of Barley in my area, which is causing concern not to farmers, but to the Scotch whisky industry. In light of the fact that we don't have any clarity about the agricultural bill, can the cabinet secretary reassure those grain farmers that they will be supported? Liz Smith I wouldn't agree with the member's statement that there's no clarity on the agricultural bill. As we've previously committed to and I still maintain that commitment, we will be introducing an agriculture bill this year where we will continue to support our farmers and crofters. As we have done in the past, we will continue to support our food producers with direct payments. Again, it's a commitment that we've previously made and that I stand by. Over decades, precision crop breeding has led to modern varieties of cereal crops, delivering higher yields and more resistant to a wide range of environmental stresses. However, the time needed for development of the new varieties takes time. With clear signs that the EU will change its position on gene editing, when will the Scottish Government commit to a policy that will allow our world-leading institutions like the Hutton to adopt GEE as a crop breeding tool that will bring huge benefits to our farming communities? Can you set out the timescales for that discussion to take place? Again, we fully support innovation when it comes to our agricultural sector and, as Finlay Carson is aware, if he names some of the institutes there, we have world-leading institutes doing world-leading work and science in that area, too. I've outlined in a previous response on gene editing where we stand with that at the moment. Of course, we're carefully considering what happens elsewhere in the EU, but we've also got to understand the wider ramifications and fully consider that before taking any steps forward, whether that could affect future trade and again making sure that we're engaging everyone in that conversation when we do that. Question 7, Ben Macpherson. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its consideration of the Scottish Land Commission's work on compulsory sale orders and land value capture. The programme for government that was published last week reiterates our commitment to consider the justification for and practical operation of compulsory sales orders and implement new infrastructure levy regulations by spring 2026. That levy would provide local authorities with an additional mechanism for securing developer contributions alongside planning obligations. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and welcome the commitment in the programme for government and that progress. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the housing crisis that we have here in Edinburgh and part of that is due to the extremely high cost of land. Therefore, I would encourage the cabinet secretary to continue to work with her Government colleagues whether that is on the vacant and derelict land fund and the housing minister and to continue to engage with City of Edinburgh Council and Parliamentarians here in the capital to work together to unlock as much of the unused land and to reduce the price of land here in the capital. The member raises some really important points within his question there. I would just want to outline that since 2021 Edinburgh City Council have received three awards from the low-carbon vacant and derelict land investment programme, totaling just under £2.5 million to support that affordable housing and public realm in Granton and Greendikes. The low-carbon vacant and derelict land investment programme really tries to support those local and ambitious proposals to tackle that persistent vacant and derelict land. Supporting place-based regeneration and the 20-minute neighbourhood aspirations is part of our just transition to net zero. Of course, together with my Government colleagues, we will be happy to engage with him and other members representing the city region and the council to see how we can take forward and take action on those issues. Land value capture and compulsory sales are obviously complex issues. Any policy in this area will have to be detailed and flexible to recognise the vast range of circumstances where such powers might be considered. If the Scottish Government does take that forward, can the minister assure us that such compulsory sales will be a last resort and that the sale will only be permitted to buyers with a fully developed and funded plan for land use? I thank the member for that question. We are obviously not at the stage yet of taking those kinds of decisions because, as the member rightly touches on this, this is a really complex area, which is why we need to undertake the work on it and why we set that out in our programme for government. I am aware that I have a meeting up coming with the member to be happy to discuss those issues and how we intend to take them forward. 17 per cent of Scotland's population is made up of people living in rural areas, yet last week the First Minister announced that he will be allocating just 10 per cent of new funding for building affordable homes to rural areas. Does the cabinet secretary accept that this is an outrageous disparity and will they push back on his plan to underfund rural housing? It is this Government that is committed to building more houses than any previous Government before us or any Government anywhere else across the Isles. I recognise that the member raises an important point about the availability of housing. When I travel to other rural parts of Scotland to our islands, housing is a key issue that is mentioned there and the need for more housing. That is why the housing minister has been working on developing a remote, rural and island housing action plan, which will be coming forward to look at how we can address and tackle those issues, whether working with the third sector, working with other enterprises, with business, because the good work is happening right across the country at the moment, but it is how we really focus on that and drive that house building forward. To ask the Scottish Government what cross-government consideration there has been regarding the use of tunnels to improve connectivity between the islands. Transport Scotland regularly engages with colleagues across the Scottish Government in the islands, planning, housing, population and infrastructure teams in the context of improving transport connectivity to and from Scotland's many islands. I recently visited Shetland, Orkney and Maldry, during which I had several discussions on the matter of tunnels and fixed links, replacing existing ferry services. While transport is a devolved matter, I have just this week had a discussion on the replacement of the free rail ferry with the UK minister, Richard Holden MP. Those discussions did not extend to fixed links to our islands. In July, Shetland Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the First Minister, asking to meet about tunnels and other matters. A date has been arranged for the council leader to meet Alistair Jack in London. Has the First Minister responded, and if not, why not? I was very pleased to meet with Shetland island council myself in August and discussed those matters as far as the First Mrs is aware. My understanding is that, in September, Shetland island council committed to spending £700,000 considering the business case for four potential new fixed links within the Shetlands. They have direct responsibility. In terms of the invitation to the First Minister, I understand that it was later in September that I may be wrong about that. I am not responsible for his diary, but I understand that an invitation is being actively considered, and I am sure that there will be a response as you might expect in due course. I am Beatrice Wishart. With the growing space, salmon and renewable energy sectors in Shetland, and the reported growing interest of the UK Government in meeting with Shetland island council about short subsea tunnels, will the Scottish Government commit a date to meet with Shetland island council specifically to discuss tunnels? First of all, I thank the member for hosting my meeting with the L announced tunnel action group when I visited. At that same time in Shetland, I also met with Shetland island council and with Sestrans and the issue of fixed links precisely because of the reasons that were set out. The growing economic links were part of that agenda item back in August. Those discussions will continue. I have also indicated to the members that I met in Shetland that Transport Scotland is ready to help and assist with any of the business cases that they are currently putting together. That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands. I will allow a brief pause to allow the front benches to change. The next item of business is portfolio questions on NHS recovery, health and social care. I can advise the chamber that questions 6 and 8 have been grouped together and therefore supplementaries on those questions will be taken after both the questions have been asked and answered. As ever, I invite anybody looking to ask a supplementary question to press the request to speak buttons during the relevant question, and I call question number one, Karen Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government in light of the First Minister's commitment in the programme for government 2023-24 to publish a new delivery plan for mental health and wellbeing, what it is doing to improve pathways to diagnosis for neurodivergent children. Following publication of the mental health and wellbeing strategy in June 2023, we will publish a delivery plan later this autumn, which will set out the steps that we will take to improve support for children with neurodevelopmental support needs. As set out in the strategy, we are committed to working in partnership to strengthen support and care pathways for people who are requiring neurodevelopmental support. To do that, we will build on work to implement the neurodevelopmental specification for children and young people, including five tests of change across Scotland, working closely with partners to share learning and to improve services and support. I thank the First Minister for that answer. With personal experience and constituent feedback, highlighting often gatekeeping at what should be access points onto a diagnostic pathway, how is the Scottish Government ensuring unimpeded access and support for neurodivergent individuals at key points such as education and community health so that they can uphold their dignity and prevent additional mental health issues? It is important for me to say in response that a diagnosis is not required for children and young people to receive support. The neurodevelopmental specification makes clear that support should be in place to meet the child or young person's requirements when they need it at the earliest opportunity, rather than being dependent on a formal diagnosis. For many children and young people, such support is likely to be community-based and should be quickly and easily accessible. We are going to continue to work with key partners from local authorities, education and health to implement the neurodevelopmental specification right across Scotland. Minister, the lower unit in Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital provided a daycare and outpatient support to children and young people with autism spectrum disorders, but it closed almost a decade ago. Families in the north-east are crying out for dedicated post-diagnostic support such as the lower unit. What action is the Scottish Government taking with health boards and local authorities to ensure that support is in place? The member will be aware that when we are approaching this issue, we intend to support children and families to access support and services that meet their needs, using the getting-it-right-for-every-child approach, the GERFEC approach. For many children and young people, such support is likely to be community-based and should be very quickly and easily accessible. There are a number of different models around the country. As I said, we are exploring four or five tests of change around the country at the end of October. We are coming together to share the learning from those tests of change and to make sure that we can implement and roll out those tests of change all over the country. Question 2, Sue Webber. Thank you. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the number of alcohol-specific deaths in 2022. Mr Eleanor Whitham. In Parliament on 7 September, I outlined the Government's plan to reduce alcohol harms and deaths in response to the alcohol-specific deaths in 2022, and committed to a debate to the plan in more detail. It includes evaluating minimum unit pricing and alcohol marketing consultation responses. We will publish the recommendations of Public Health Scotland's review on alcohol-beef interventions and ask Public Health Scotland to investigate reductions in referral numbers to services. Approximately £113 million is available to support initiatives that respond to local needs underpinned by the forthcoming treatment standards and workforce action plan to improve quality and capacity. Minister, in April it was revealed to me via a written question from yourself that the Scottish Government had cut alcohol and drug recovery services by £19 million in 2022-23. Now that we have seen a 14-year high in alcohol deaths and Scotland remains the drug death capital of Europe, does the minister accept that those cuts have had a devastating effect on people suffering with drug and alcohol misuse? Will the minister commit to restoring funding to those services in 2023-24? It is really important to point out that, in my response to the question that the member raised, we outlined that there had been no reduction in the funding that was being made available to alcohol and drug partnerships. Indeed, the funding being made available to them had increased year on year. Last year we had £106.8 million available to alcohol and drug partnerships. This year we have £113 million available to those same partnerships. What we asked those partnerships to do was to make sure that they used their reserves appropriately and then drew down on the funding. However, that funding has then been moved forward and used in other ways within alcohol and drug partnerships. There has been no overall reduction in funding, but I will bring back to the chamber a debate where we will discuss a cohesive plan. I recognise that members across the chamber are looking to understand what the Government is doing to tackle alcohol-specific deaths and alcohol harm, so I will do that. The Scottish Government's world-leading minimum unit pricing policy has been shown to have a welcome impact on tackling alcohol-related harm. Can the minister provide any update as to on-going work to review the price level? Work on reviewing the level of a minimum unit pricing is under way as the impact of MUP is connected to the unit price. It is important that we have a robust evidence space to support any decision on the change of the level of MUP. As I outlined in the programme for government, we will publish our final report on the operation and the effect of MUP in the Scottish Parliament later this month, alongside a consultation on its future, both in terms of price and the continuation of the scheme. Question 3 was not lodged. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with NHS Fife and what was discussed. Ministers and Scottish Government officials regularly meet with representatives of all health boards, including NHS Fife, to discuss matters of importance to local people. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. One current NHS Fife issue concerns the new medical centre for Lokelley. Can the cabinet secretary advise, further to his most welcome visit last week, whether he recognises that Lokelley has waited an awful long time and that its new medical centre deserves to be treated as a priority? I am grateful to Annabelle Ewing for her question and for her invitation to visit the health centre in Lokelley last week. I want to put on record my thanks to those in the local community and the staff within the local health centre for the time and engagement that I had with them during my visit. There is no doubt in my view that the health centre needs to be replaced. As I outlined to Annabelle Ewing in the local community, the health centre was not within the infrastructure investment plan for 2021-26. Of course, alongside that, we are having to undertake a review of our capital expenditure due to a cut in our capital budget by the UK Government and the impact of construction inflation, which has pushed up the cost of existing projects very significantly. However, I assure the member that we will continue to look at what can be done because I recognise the need for the health centre in Lokelley to be replaced. I was a land over the summer that NHS Fife reported a £7.9 million revenue overspend, only two months into the fiscal year. I would be concerned if attempts to bring that overspend back under control resulted in the loss of staffing, especially when the waiting lists are just enormous. What steps is the Government taking to protect services in Fife? For example, one of the actions that we are taking to protect and improve services in Fife is the construction of our new national treatment centre that is delivering additional capacity to the Kingdom of Fife and for patients in that area, which is a significant investment that will improve services going forward. I assure the member that where we have boards that are projecting overspends going forward that we provide them with tailored support and engage with them to try to manage the financial pressures that they are facing. However, I hope that the member will recognise by the creation of the NTC in Fife. It is a clear demonstration of this Government's commitment to improving services in Fife. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to urgently address the reported maintenance backlog in GP practices. Over the next four years, we will invest £73 billion in health and care services and a further £1.3 billion in capital funding, doubling our investment in maintenance and equipment replacement to support their recovery, sustainability and reform. That is in addition to the annual primary medical services allocation, which includes £68 million for the provision of maintenance of GP practice estate. The Scottish Government will continue to work with boards to address financial pressures across the system. I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. He will know that the current maintenance backlog in GP surgeries stands at £78.5 million, which is already over the budget that he has set out. He knows that there is a shortage of GPs, primary care budgets have been cut and only 5 per cent of doctors in a recent BMA survey thought that their practice was sustainable. With services already stretched, can I ask the cabinet secretary what more he can do to set aside capital funding over the next three years to repair GP practices? I am not entirely sure that the figure that Jackie Baillie quotes is the correct figure, because within the data that he is using, I suspect that there is a range of additional costs in that, which are about lifetime recurring costs, which are normal for capital projects. As I have already outlined, we are in a situation where the Scottish Government's capital budget has been cut by the UK Government, which has a direct impact on how much we can invest in our capital estate. Alongside that, we are also having to deal with what is a very significant increase in capital project costs as a result of construction inflation. We will continue to do everything that we can to invest in capital projects, but there are significant challenges that the capital review is presently being taken forward by the DfFM in order to look at what further action we will have to take to address the financial pressures that we are facing in our capital budgets. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported plans by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to reduce the number of community link workers embedded in GP practices in deprived areas of Glasgow by one third due to Scottish Government funding cuts. I am very concerned about the risks to link workers in Glasgow from April 2024 as they provide a vital service in disadvantaged areas. My officials are engaging with the health and social care partnership on its plans for primary care in 2024-25 and exploring all options to avoid a reduction in posts. I received several letters from deep end practices and have met with one in Glasgow, telling me how invaluable community link workers are. Those cuts are a direct threat to the stability of the practices themselves and the loss of community link workers will have a severe impact on the most vulnerable patients in our poorest communities. The SNP made a manifesto commitment to increase community link workers in GP surgeries and promised investment in practices in disadvantaged areas. Why are we seeing the opposite and will the Scottish Government ensure that those cuts are reversed? Unfortunately, Mr Gohan is actually incorrect. Those are not a result of Scottish Government budget cuts because the funding for community link workers comes from the primary care improvement fund. That fund still stands at £190 million. The issue that Glasgow's health and social care partnership has is that it has gone beyond the funding that was provided to them in the delivery of community link workers that they are no longer able to sustain. He may be aware that we actually stepped in and provided an extra £1.3 million this year in order to protect posts in this financial year and we are continuing to engage with the health and social care partnership to make sure that we have a sustainable position to support what are invaluable workers working in some of the most challenging GP practices in the country. Question 8 from Paul Suni, who joins us remotely. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the 2021 SNP manifesto commitment to expand on the community link worker programme. Due to difficult decisions during the emergency budget review, recruitment of additional roles to support community mental health resilience and ensure every general practice has access to a dedicated mental health and wellbeing service was not commenced. However, we have already prioritised significant investment to build primary care mental health capacity through action 15 and the primary care improvement fund. Over 540 whole-time equivalent primary care mental health workers have been recruited through these. We remain committed to improving mental health service provision in primary care settings. As Dr Gohani mentioned, the proposed reduction in community link worker posts in Glasgow will be felt most acutely by deprived communities in the city. Last week's programme for government committed to ensuring that services such as the link worker programme can respond to local needs in the year ahead, but link workers and GP practices are facing uncertainty in the year. It is not good enough for the cabinet secretary to simply pass the buck. Will the cabinet secretary commit to getting around the table with the Glasgow city health and social care partnership and the GMB trade union to ensure that link worker provision is maintained at its current level and can be funded more sustainably in the longer term? As I already mentioned, in response to Mr Gohani's question, we are already engaging with the health and social care partnership in Glasgow to understand their plans for the primary care improvement fund and will continue to engage with them in order to try to address the issues that they face with community link workers. I recognise the important value that they have and we want to make sure that they are maintained in order to support GP practices in some of our most deprived communities. I met GPs in Easterhouse this week in my Glasgow province constituency who expressed deep concern at proposed reductions to the hugely valuable community link worker programme. The highlighted reductions in GP workload and in prescriptions issued as a consequence of the work undertaken by the link workers. They also highlighted a carbon cost as prescriptions are one of the health services' biggest carbon footprints. Those reductions are a false economy at a time when we should be moving towards preventative medicine. Has the Scottish Government done any assessment of the additional costs in terms of GP time or additional prescriptions and, indeed, a carbon footprint that would arise from those proposals? We carried out such an assessment on general practices all the wider system. However, we recognise the important value that community link workers have as part of the multidisciplinary team in primary care settings. That is why we take the issues that are highlighted by members around the potential impact on community link workers in Glasgow very seriously and why we have already started a process of engagement with the health and social care partnership in Glasgow to understand how they plan to use the investment that we are providing them with around the primary care improvement fund. However, I would also underline the point that we have already stepped in to provide financial support to the health and social care partnership to allow them to continue at those posts within this financial year. It is important that there is a partnership that has a sustainable financial pathway to supporting those posts. To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to invest in community midwifery services to ensure that they are consistently delivered in areas of need rather than in centralised and often hard-to-access locations. We remain committed to ensuring that maternity services continue to be developed in a flexible and innovative way, recognising local population needs and geographic challenges. Over the past five years, the Scottish Government has invested over £25 million to support implementation of the best start programme, which includes recommendations for continuity of care and the delivery of community hubs. We also published the continuity of care and local delivery of care implementation framework, which is designed to assist NHS board implementation. That will be based on local needs assessment, viability and scope of potential impact hubs. Community midwives also deliver care in women's homes as necessary. I thank the minister for that answer. I have met with midwives across South Scotland region, and what is clear to me is that there is now significant pressure on midwifery professionals' ability to deliver regular, high-quality community-based services to those most in need. Is the Government's lack of a proper education and workforce strategy for midwives and the Government's inability to support rural health boards with high numbers of vacancies contributing to those pressures? Will they accept that back and set out in full the action that they can take, which will ensure that midwives are supported to provide community-based services in areas most in need? I thank the member for that question. A couple of weeks ago, I met a number of midwives across Scotland at their conference, and it was heartening to hear the progress that the best start programme has created within midwifery. We have also got the national midwifery's task force, which we work closely with. I know that the member has written to me on other subjects, and I am happy to meet with that. Perhaps we can cover that in that meeting as well. Continuity of carer was a key recommendation of the Scottish Government's best start plan to reshape paternity and neonatal services with a vision of relationship-based continuity of carer, tailored to the individual's needs, and delivered as close to home as possible. Can the minister provide any updates as to the Scottish Government's work to progress that recommendation? All boards continue to work towards implementation of continuity of carer following a pause during Covid-19. We have reconvened the best start leads group and have held learning events and deep-dive sessions to support boards with the implementation of continuity of carer, the most recent being on 30 August. In addition, we have written out to boards asking them to continue to prioritise roll-out of continuity with a particular focus on socially complex women and families, and women with poorer maternity outcomes. Boards will report back to us on how they are progressing with that work. That concludes portfolio questions on NHS recovery, health and social care. There will be a brief pause to allow front benches to change before we move on to the next item of business.


Hi everyone, Sean with jaspeyscasebrakes.com doing 2020 National Treasures Collegiate football four box case break pick your team number eight We've already done the randomizers. We've done everything else as well So here it is right in the back here. You can see the case up here on the Nick cam as well but Here is our final list You can see on here a bunch of teams either in random number block two or random number block one We did randomizers for both of those So I'll show that as well So random number block one here encompasses random number lock one encompasses the Chiefs Packers Eagles Colts and Texans You can see that's the native of topics Kansas City, etc while random number block two on this sheet Includes eleven teams with the Dallas Cowboys Ravens, Buccaneers, Bills, Lions, Rams, Redskins, Panthers, Bears, Browns, and Titans So those are the randomizers for those Now It's time to get down to business and find some nice stuff for you guys This is my first time opening antique legion football this year. So I'm excited. I hope it's Memorable for all of you as well. Yeah, Ryan. He's pretty exceptional. I think he just needs a chance somewhere else, unfortunately At least maybe I don't think I've done any of this. I might have I could be wrong I'm typically never wrong Unless it's with my girlfriend Nice Halloween colors for this October box one. Good luck, everybody Every cut is always monumental No pop Yeah, right mark. It's pretty awesome. So it looks like the boxes are considerably bigger than the cards luckily, so It should come out pretty easily Perfect, so be our display set up for the rest of the break So starting with Todd girly 40 out of 49 for Georgia Todd girly current Todd girly would go to the Atlanta Falcons Which is emmer a car you emmer and Mark Andrews 44 out of 75 for the Baltimore Ravens, which is random number block two And spot four also emmer. We got a booklet and it's Justin Herbert 88 out of 99. Let's see it. Boom Very nice Going to the Los Angeles Chargers and Eric Chargers are my team. There you go, Eric Congratulations, very clean auto You should be jealous. I'm jealous Let me grab a couple boxes for these real quick Give me one second. That should be enough So nice start. You can see right on their LAC That it's protected Boom And in case you've got a cover on top and on bottom so Won't be rubbing Brian Edwards 73 of 99 Going to the Raiders and Eric age Mark Andrews relic 10 out of 25 For the Ravens, which is at random number block number two spot zero rich for artist Van Jefferson Patch in auto 46 out of 99 for the Rams Which is part of random number block two also Spot six is Richard Aplis Congrats Richard Colisea Lipscomb 42 out of 49. Why is that Viking? Packers sorry apologies to Packers fans out there for calling him a Viking So Green Bay Packers random number block number one spot two for Kyle T Higgins nice three-color patch and auto 23 out of 49 For the Cincinnati Bengals and Shawn Matic. We have a redemption Any guesses? college silhouettes signatures Card 101 C a Se y o ung Chase young going to Washington football team random number block two and Rich for artist Washington there you go rich Congrats Those box one There you go, Ryan will purchase that from you rich if you are so inclined Do not collect the Washington football team first up Derek Henry 45 of 49 For the Tennessee Titans running number block two spot five Which is Ryan Herald Aaron Jones 35 out of 75 Green Bay Packers random number block one spot five Richard Aplis Here's the booklet and it's Donovan people's Jones 33 out of 35 patch and auto Wolverines I believe is Cleveland Browns Yep, Cleveland Browns. So Cleveland Browns is random number lock two spot three Matt McLaughlin. Why would I do that Brad? So Cleveland? And that is protected Dual relic Levisca Chanel Jr. He's Jaguars and Stephen Montez was not Jaguars He's not on Michigan anymore, Brad. So that's going to be a randomizer between Jaguars and Washington Which Washington is actually random number block to Jacksonville is Todd Greenwald Straight up. So that is number two Random number block two is Kyle. So that's gonna be a random a randomizer between Kyle spot two on the random number block and Jacksonville Jaguars and Todd Let me set that over there Xavier McKinney 18 out of 25 rookie auto Which I believe is Dolphins Nope giants New York Giants Justin gutting and Dual auto Brian Lewerke and Daryl Stewart Jr. numbered six out of ten both from Michigan State University and The Spartans, so let's check that out Brian Lewerke Lewerke is Patriots on the checklist and Daryl Stewart is Packers so that'll be randomized between the Patriots and the Packers Patriots is emmer Packers is random number block one spot six Which is Sean Matic. I like this one Team logos Brian Edwards 25 out of 25 for the Raiders and Eric Hange. I Like the team logo cards. It's really cool Very clean two-color jersey and auto 20 out of 25 KJ Hamler For the Denver Broncos and Eric Hange He might have used the wrong or the not the pen that they intended for him I don't feel like that was the pen that they intended him to sign with but He did an okay job for such a thick pen and how about this one very nice looking Henry rugs the third two out of 25 For the Raiders and Eric like that's a good looking pen Starting off with Mark Andrews 51 out of 99 for the Ravens random number block to spot one Anthony and another booklet and this one is T. Higgins 23 out of 25. Do we get some color on the patch? Maybe Two colors just a little bit purple on there T. Higgins Cincinnati Bengals Sean Matic Congrats for the Bengals and Sean congratulations Got a triple relic Henry rugs Jerry Judy and Tua rugs Raiders Judy Broncos Tua Dolphins Dolphins is Sean Raiders is Eric and Broncos is Eric. So Eric Hange Eric Hange and Sean Matic randomizer Jerry Judy relic. This one's going straight to the Broncos And Eric Bose Scarborough 73 out of 99. I know him as a As a lion, but what did they have him in the checklist as? They have him as a lion. So there you go For the Detroit Lions Random number block to spot three Matt McLaughlin Colin Johnson two color Relic and auto 49 out of 99 Colin Johnson is I can't I think of it Jaguars Jacksonville Jaguars Todd Brian almost got me. It's like what are you talking about? This is a nice patch Michael Pittman, Jr From the Goodyear Bowl You get the patch you got a little bit of yellow you got a lot of the red ten out of ten Going to the Colts random number block one Spot zero Ryan Cason Congrats Ryan. Mr. Jordan love himself three out of 25 nice patch there Green Bay Packers random and number block one spot three David Callender Congrats David Cool and last box last box everybody. Good luck. It feels a little bit thicker This is the last one Ryan. This is box for Mark Andrews again 22 out of 49 For the Ravens random number block to spot to Kyle last spot moja our booklet Nate Stanley Hawkeye 11 out of 35 Jersey and auto booklet Stanley is Vikings Minnesota Vikings is David Callender There you go, David. Congratulations Sorry about that That was a relic of Jared Gough For the Golden Bears 33 out of 99 for Los Angeles Rams random number block to spot three Which is Matt McLaughlin Joey you're crazy if you actually think that on top of that relic was KJ Hamler 23 out of 99 For the Denver Broncos and Eric Derek Brown 23 out of 25 For the Carolina Panthers random number block to spot three Matt McLaughlin LaMichael P. Ryan 62 out of 99 Nice three color patch and auto For the New York Jets Jets Jets Jets Eric Lynn Bowden, Jr. 78 out of 99 Jersey and auto That's not realistic Joey He's currently on the Dolphins, but let's see who they have him on in this one They have him on the Raiders still so that's gonna go to the Las Vegas Raiders and Eric our last hit of the break Very nice patch and auto Justin Herbert 54 out of 99 going to the Chargers and Eric Jock My Chargers There you go, Eric. Congratulations We got a couple randomizers to do including Leviska-Chanalt, Jr. and Steven Montez dual relic Brian Lewerke and Dorel Stewart, Jr. dual auto and a triple relic of Henry Ruggs, Jerry Judy and Tua Taga-Vailoa. So let me go set those randomizers up Give me one second. We're in pause video do those randomizers and conclude the break Okay, we're back. I've got a couple randomizers to wrap up The break itself So the three randomizer we're gonna use the same dice roll for each one is Leviska-Chanalt, Jr. Which is between the Jaguars and the Washington football team Leviska-Chanalt, Jr. Steven Montez dual relic the Brian Lewerke Dorel Stewart, Jr. dual auto which is between the Patriots of the Packers and the triple relic of Henry Ruggs, Jerry Judy and Tua Taga-Vailoa, which is between the Raiders, Broncos and the Dolphins dice roll It's gonna be the same for all three. We'll click over to the randomizer and get a dice roll going Four and a four eight times. So first on the Montez-Chanalt, Jr. dual relic one two three four five six seven and Eighth and final time that's going to the Jaguars staying with Leviska-Chanalt, Jr. and Todd Greenwald the Auto of Brian Lewerke and Dorel Stewart, Jr. eight times on that randomizer one two three four five six seven and Eighth and final time that's staying with the Patriots, which was Brian Lewerke, I believe Double check. Yep for the Patriots Now eight times on the triple relic. Good luck one two three four five six seven and Eighth and final time That's going to the Raiders and Henry Ruggs Raiders is Eric Ainge that Brian Lewerke dual auto for the Patriots is Emmer Akyar. So there you go guys. That was the break That was 2020 Penini National Treasures Collegiate Football four box case break pick and team number eight. I'm Sean Jaspie's case breaks.com Pick a team number nine. I think might be going in the store later on Jaspie's case breaks.com. Thank you guys. We'll see you next time