This Friday, May 20th, Pikeville's Main Street program will be hosting its Girls Night Out event. Monday, Mount Top spoke with Main Street director, meant to tremble about how you can get involved. Girls Night Out is Friday night, May the 20th, and this is an awesome event where we kind of pair together shopping and wine tasting, and it's a time for people to get out, come downtown. They get a chance to sample wines from Savage Farms Winery from Louisa, Kentucky. We're really excited. This is our special guest this time, first time that we worked with them. So what we do is we take their wines and put them at different shops and businesses downtown. You'll start here at the shops at 225 on Second Street, pick up your swag bag. The swag bag is $10, but inside is all kinds of coupons and goodies to where you can spend and do things around downtown. We are Pikeville Medical Center, and we are an amazing place to work. Healthcare heroes of all types work here. All who deserve great rewards. So while our heroes are working hard to take care of our patients and visitors, we are taking care of them with top-tier benefits, higher pay rates, and great sign-on bonuses. So join our team today. So what are you waiting for? Apply today! Incredible opportunities await at PMCJobs.org. Under the event, participants can purchase a $10 swag bag, which includes 10 downtown dollars, 10 tasting drink tickets, and exclusive coupons and giveaways. So all week you can come in here at the shops and purchase your swag bag. It'll be ready for pick-up Friday evening at 6 o'clock. Well, excuse me, let's say 5 o'clock because we're starting Girls Sign Out a little earlier this year. It's from 6 to 9. And we did that in partnership with the Appalachian Center for the Arts. They are showing a performance of gifted talent doing driving Miss Daisy. So it's all about getting out with your friends, having a good time, tasting some wine, shopping, and coming downtown. To purchase a swag bag, you can contact them at trimble at<PHONE_NUMBER>. You can find the event Friday, May 20th at the shops at 225 Second Street. For Mountain Top News, I'm Joel Korgel.


In this video I'm going to talk about a penny stock which I believe to be a hidden gem I think it's got a lot of potential moving forward I believe we're going to talk about in this video our pricing strategy where I see this going this particular penny stock and What this penny stock is actually all about and the research on that do smash the like button It does help out the channel, but to respect your time I'm going to get direct into the information for you If you appreciate that direct approach of getting into it, then do hit the like button. Let's get right into it So first of all what we've got is a penny stock that Institutions are actively buying fairly recently. So it is 20 21 or 304 Hudson beer capital is actually bought 164,000 shares on this one There's also see some other buyers here and you can see that set certainly fairly recently There's more people buying this stop than they are selling this stop So I do see that this stock's got a lot of potential moving forward I really do and we'll go into it in the video. Also, I've just got to quickly say I'm not a financial adviser I'm a business teacher, but I'm by no means an expert on the stock market So as always, you know, do your own favor research into this I could very well be wrong But from my understanding I do believe that this is a good penny stock, right moving on What do they focus on so they've got three core interactive entertainment segments They are producing toys and games and they're augment augmenting toys Into technology and they're creating that approach there They've got a massive education and mobile game Community development as well. So they're involved in three emerging sectors here And I do believe this is a hidden gem If you also look at the market cap and also the price to earnings ratio is incredibly attractive Okay, moving into this now come company overview. So blue hat interactive entertainment technology is a producer developer and operator of augmented reality AR interactive entertainment games and toys in China including interactive educational materials mobile games and toys with mobile game features and our mobile connected entertainment platform enables us to connect physical items To mobile devices through wireless technologies creating a unique interactive user experience And this is interesting. This adds a USB USB to the company. What does that mean? It means unique selling point. They're actually adding something together. They're augmenting toys with Technology and I think that this this augmentation I think this is the future of toys in that sense as well Okay, is actually bringing this into the 21st century and augmenting it now This is not to say that this is something that's new and it's the only company that's doing this There's other people other companies doing this as well, but I do think it is a growing industry I think they're going to really grow what they're doing now What is their goal is to create a rich visual and interactive? environment for users throughout the integration of real objects and virtual scenery we believe this combination provides users with a more natural form of human computer interaction and enhances users perception of reality Right going into this by the way Well, if you can subscribe to the channel if you knew that'd be much appreciated We cover many penny stocks in the latest hidden gem penny stocks ones that they're not necessarily being talked about as much Okay, so if you want to find the hidden gems then do subscribe to the channel moving on So what do they have so they've got a diversified product offering? Which is grown with our customers, right? What have they got a our technology to enhance interactive gaming experience? They've got in-house development of toys that are competitive and consumer markets So they have got a range of products here. They've got a our racer blue-hot IP toys License IP toys a our dinosaur AI Picture books play based learning center smart and massive education initiatives So they got a range of products and they are selling them. They're actively selling them And you know what there is penny stocks out there that don't yet have a product that they're actually selling This particular penny stock is selling these products and they have a lot of different products Which is good to see in an immersive and growing industry Now, what do they say that they're doing so building three pillars of interactive media? That's the main area that they're doing one of this good points about the this company is that it has a high margin on Its products they can actually spy the product They can develop the products and then sell the product with their high growth Growth margin. Okay, which is really good to see so accelerates blue-hot sales growth to adoption of games Get this up 29% in 2019 to 23.8 million dollars Okay, and it's also that's in terms of the recent but we'll go through some fairly recent stuff as well So online early education market as well that they're actually trying to get involved with as well and to purchase 41% of another company here Now it's growing its margin. It's going its revenue. Just to look into the products though. What do they do? So they've got the immersive classes. So this is a suite of smart educational products including smart screen Education classes smart immersive cognitive Education classes and smart immersive physical education. They've got AR racer this is a car racing mobile game using a physical toy car stuck until the users mobile devices screen using non-adhesive materials, okay? So they've actually Interacted technology together with the product some very interesting stuff indeed. They've also got AR dinosaurs Which is an educational toy that comes in a variety of five different types of dinosaur Which has their own personality and emotions through interact when interacting with this toy And it's a company in mobile that children can learn a wealth of information about dinosaurs So this again is interacting a toy with the mobile technology and bringing that together and they are actively selling these products Now their growth strategy as well Includes schools. So they're trying to actually Get these smart immersive Education classes and experience sessions into more schools. This is a catalyst if they can get them into more schools That's more potential revenue and of course What also in addition to that that they are actually developing their commercial products and they're trying to expand it offline and online What does that mean? They're trying to get it into physical retail stores their products But also online retail stores These are all catalysts for them to move up in the potential price of this company, right? Now annual financial highlights, you can see here a revenue growth of up to twenty eight point six million It's gross profit is up thirty one point five percent net income up fifteen point nine percent So this company is continually growing. It's building its products out there It's working with some fantastic offline retailers here that is actually going to help grow this this product into the future Okay, and I do see this growing revenue I do see this company growing towards to the future because they've got a range of interesting products that they're actively selling Okay, and I think that this is a very interesting area that they're involved with that And they're right to have this dual approach offline and online So they're trying to sell online in terms of e-commerce, but then they're also trying to get into physical stores as well So that just maximizes the revenue being able to be offline and online On that in that situation And you can see the annual financial highlights Now the current price of this particular penny stock is one dollars sixty four This is going to probably dip a little lower It did actually pop today sixteen percent and I'm thinking it's going to move down a little bit To hopefully the the buying sort of range that I'm thinking is very interesting to me is around the one dollar thirty Range ideally one dollar thirty range to one dollar fifty on the high end But if you can get this around one dollar twenty one dollar thirty I think that'll put it as a more comfortable position here because you can notice it kind of was hovering around Zero point eight one dollars twenty for a while and it's popping up recently and it's a very unknown company So there's not many people that know about this company investors that know about this company because it doesn't get talked about a lot But as this gets on investors radar see this moving up It's at a market cap of seventy seven point nine eight million and it's P Ratio price to any is ratio is only six point three one according to this this information here So that seems to be quite low That seems to be like a quite a good P ratio for this company So I do see this one moving up. What do I see it doing in the medium term? I think this could hit two dollars fifty to three dollars in the long term I could see this moving above five dollars But this is one of these companies that I see moving up massively over time, especially with this AR You know augmented reality and toys component There's a lot of commercialization and the sales of products in that area And I do like the fact that their margins are actually quite big as well They're actually growing the margins on each product So thanks for watching this video if you did enjoy it then do smash that like button It really helps out the channel. So do smash the like button and don't forget to subscribe to the channel If you knew we cover any latest penny stocks and also ones that don't often get mentioned as well and Let's talked about or less known less known in the penny stock Stock stock market investing game, right? So moving into this look consider this one, right? Subscribe to the channel comment down below is some of your favorite penny stocks in the comments section down below And I'll see everybody in the next video Thanks for all the support on the channel for anybody who keeps watching the videos or likes them or subscribes I honestly really do appreciate all the support on the channel and hopefully You know, I did a bit of research on this particular penny stock There was other ones that I was looking at but I completely scrapped them because they didn't seem interesting to me They didn't seem to have potential, but this one I think has got a lot of potential So in the making in this video, I had a look about four or five different penny stocks for you I scrapped four of them. I'm talking about one of them Which is this one which I think is really quite good Looking into the future and it's a hidden gem in my opinion It's got involved in a lot of industries, isn't it? You know, it's involved in education and a massive education and high-tech education It's involved in toys and the commercialization of augmented reality with toys So they've got a lot of growth Trajectories for their revenue, which is really good to see Thanks for watching the video. I'll see you later


Cyber Conflict Module 4, Understanding the Cyber Threat Once you have completed the readings, lecture, activity, and assessment, you will be able to articulate the major findings of the Marsh Commission, describe the purpose and results of exercise eligible receiver, articulate how John Stone's conceptualization of acts of war differs from Thomas Ritz. Welcome to Cyber Conflict Module 4. In previous lectures, you learned how concerns about computer system vulnerabilities have existed since the 1980s with President Reagan's NSDD-145 and how the Stuxnet computer worm in 2009 marked a turning point in the history of warfare. This lecture discusses years in between those two events, as the focus on cybersecurity dissipated but then rose again. Reagan's NSDD-145 was the first high-level policy document to address cyber warfare. Even so, maintaining focus on the vulnerability of computer technologies was difficult at that time, as the United States was in the midst of the Cold War and experiencing other international crises. The 1990s saw cybersecurity return to the forefront of national security policy, following various terrorist attacks such as the 1995 Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing. As computers were becoming ubiquitous in nearly every type of critical infrastructure system, policymakers were realizing the degree of damage that terrorists might wreak if they could access computers controlling those infrastructure systems. In June 1995, President Bill Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 39, the U.S. policy on counterterrorism. PDD 39 led to the creation of a panel to review how vulnerable the country's critical infrastructure was to terrorism. This panel eventually led to the creation of the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, tasked to explore both the physical and cyber threats to our critical infrastructure systems. In October 1997, the Commission released its findings in a sobering 154-page report that noted, the capability to do harm particularly through information networks is real. It is growing at an alarming rate and we have little defense against it. As this Presidential Commission was finalizing its findings, the U.S. military was also discovering the vulnerabilities of its own computer systems. Lieutenant General Kenneth Minahan, an Air Force Information Operations pioneer and National Security Agency director, was frustrated at the refusal of the military's leadership to give cybersecurity serious thought. To highlight the problem, he planned and executed a major command and control event, Exercise Eligible Receiver in June 1997. The exercise initially planned for two weeks was over in four days as General Minahan's small NSA hacking group penetrated and shut down some of the most critical of the military's computer systems, including the phone system and a classified intelligence system used by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This course in part seeks to illustrate how cyber threats came to be taken seriously by military and corporate leaders. As you have read and heard, this was a slow process. The course also seeks to highlight the evolution of how military theorists incorporate cyber capabilities into their strategic frameworks. In the last module, you read about Thomas Ridd's skepticism regarding cyber capabilities and cyber warfare. In this module, you were introduced to John Stone, who argues that cyber attacks could, in fact, constitute acts of war. The cyber domain of war is new and much like the dawn of the nuclear age, debates about how these capabilities should be taking place are not unusual. Exercise Eligible Receiver rapidly changed the mindset of the military and set in motion a new focus on computer operational security, although it wasn't enough to fully secure all the military's computer systems, as we'll soon find out. In fact, at about the same time that Exercise Eligible Receiver was being conducted, Russia was hacking into multiple U.S. military and university computer systems via the moonlight maze intrusions. We will discuss that event shortly, but the next module will provide some background on Russia, including how the Russians have traditionally approached cyber warfare. Quiz question one, true or false? The Marsh Commission was instrumental in solidifying public support for nuclear weapons research. The answer is false. Quiz question two, which of the following was a result of Exercise Eligible Receiver? A, it highlighted the importance of improving cybersecurity within the U.S. armed forces. B, it highlighted the importance of electronic warfare weaponry to the U.S. Navy. C, it prepared the U.S. military for war with Haiti. D, it gave the president responsibility for coordinating the nation's response to cyber attack. Answer A is correct. It highlighted the importance of improving cybersecurity within the U.S. armed forces. The activity for this module asks that you reflect on John Stones and Thomas Rids, conceptualizations of cyber war, by considering the following. With which theorist do you most align in terms of thinking about cyber war? Why? Do you feel the violence unleashed by cyber attacks lacks the emotional resonance that RID believes it does? Will this change as technology becomes more present in the future? How do you think wars will be fought in the future? And to what extent do you believe they will revolve around cyber technologies?


So, it is this entropy that we will be concerning ourselves with today. So, here is a very simple calculation to get started. So, here is RNA polymerase this example that we were talking about today. This RNA polymerase binds on the DNA it translates along this template DNA stand and it produces the same RNA. So, if you again if I am just concerned about the binding of this RNA polymerase to the DNA, I can approximate. So, I create a cartoon in my mind of this process that this DNA has certain regions which are binding regions for the RNA polymerase right. So, given by this dark red regions. So, if I think of this DNA as a one-dimensional lattice there are certain sites where the RNA polymerase can come and bind. This is true not only for RNA polymerase, what could any DNA binding protein? So, it is a generic model for a generic lattice model for a DNA protein complex ok. So, an RNA polymerase or some protein can come and bind on certain specific sites and maybe you want to calculate what is the probability of occupancy. So, what fraction of these binding sites on the DNA will be occupied by an RNA polymerase? We will do that, but let us first do a simpler problem that what is the let us say I have some. So, remember the free energy is E minus T s. So, let me for the time being first consider just the entropy part, I will come back to the energy part later on. Let us say I have this one-dimensional DNA. This is of course, an approximation in that I am forgetting about the sequence specificity and so on. I am just saying that certain sites can bind my RNA polymerase. So, let us say I have n sites that can that are binding sites and I have n p of these RNA polymerases. What would be the what would be the number of microstates? So, in how many ways can I arrange this n p molecules among these n available binding sites? Yes. Why a permutation? So, for example, almost correct. So, let us say I have an RNA polymerase, I put the first RNA polymerase somewhere here, I put the second one over there 1, 2, I put the third one here right. This is indistinguishable from the fact that if I have put the first one here and maybe the second one there right because these RNA polymerases it is difficult to distinguish which each individual RNA polymerase. All you can see is whether in site is occupied by an RNA polymerase or not, which means that this p is not the right thing, but it becomes a C right. And then the entropy is of course, Kb log of omega this clear right. If you have n sites in how many ways can you choose to fill n p of them? What is this entropy? Anyone? This is simple two state problem right. If you remember your classical statistical mechanics, you have some filled sites, you have some empty sites, what is the corresponding entropy? Or even if you do not remember the expression, how does this entropy behave? As let us say a function of n, n p. If I were to plot this entropy as a function of n p, so I can calculate this of course, I can do Kb log of n factorial by n p factorial n minus n p factorial right. You use the Sirling's approximation, you assume that n is large, n p is large and so on and you can reduce this hopefully to a recognizable form. But this is fairly elementary two state system in stat mech. Anyone remembers how the entropy looks like, how the entropy behaves? Maximum at the center, whereas some Shogatha is saying like this, it will fall like something like this ok. So, how that they tell me why a maximum at the center when n p is n by 2 ok. Shogatha, why will it decrease? Let us say I had these winding sites and I wanted to I had only one RNA polymerase right. So, this one polymerase I can place in any one of these n ways. So, my each of them is a configuration. So, my omega is n right. Say if I had 2, so this is omega 1 number of states say if I had omega 2, the first one I could have placed in n ways, the next one I could have placed in n minus 1 ways or something like n square right. So, if I take the log of this which one is going to be larger right. So, similarly if you had many many many many RNA polymerases, let us say you had equal number of RNA polymerases that you had sites, you again come back to very few options because if you had equal exactly equally where only one way which is everything is filled ok. So, this is the right this is the right behavior of entropy, it is very low when you have no molecules, it is very low when you have very high molecules, it is exactly it is maximum exactly at n p equal to n by 2. Now, anyone does that make you recall the formula for the entropy you know where it is. So, this is the this is what this is the micro state sort of counting which we have done. So, you should again go back and recall. So, if you do this Stirling's approximation on this, what you will get is something like n kb right log of n p by n n p by n log of n p by n plus n minus n p by n log of n minus n p. Does this make sense? Actually you might as well just spend time.  So, this n will cancel with this n p and n minus n p. So, what you are left with is n log n minus n p log n p minus n minus n p log of n minus n p right and then you just massage it. So, you can break this n up into n p plus n minus n p right log n and then the remaining two terms you keep the same and then if you divide this. So, you take n p common then it becomes log n minus log n p. So, this is n p log n p by n and then this n minus n p common. So, plus n minus n p again log of n minus n p by n and then if you take an overall n outside then you divide by n throughout and this is a standard two state entropy right. So, if in some sense you call this the linear density of polymerase molecules or whatever molecules that you are interested in if I call this quantity c. If I call this like a c then this is c log c plus 1 minus c log 1 minus c right which is what we have. So, n k b c log c plus 1 minus c log 1 minus c and that looks if you plot that entropy that will look exactly like this the maximum number of microstates that you will have available is when n p is exactly half half of n. So, c is equal to half that is the standard two state entropy. So, you can use these sort of very basic static concepts to get and handle on what are the entropy or what are the number of microstates that a binding process like this would have in a biological context. We have of course, done many simplifications we have not taken any specificities we have forgotten about the actual 3D structure of the DNA and so on, but even so even with these we will see how good these approximation these type of simple calculations do ok. I will come back to that, but let us look at for the moment related problem of this ligand receptor binding ok. Again this is generically of the same class of problems that we are thinking about it is a binding problem. So, I have two protein molecules ligand and a receptor. So, for example, this is a hemoglobin which binds this oxygen and the same group at the center binds the oxygen. So, the oxygen would be the ligand the hemoglobin protein would be the receptor. Similarly, this is a different protein molecule this is the PD 1 ligand protein this thing over here this curved protein over there is the receptor ok. So, you have a large protein generally which we call as the receptor and a smaller protein which comes and binds on it which we call the ligand. So, I have some large protein let us say like this which is my ligand and a smaller protein comes and sets on it which is my receptor ok. And then depending on whether this protein is bound or not you can perform different functions inside the cell. So, again let us say what I want to ask is that given a certain concentration of these ligands what is the probability that a receptor is bound to a ligand ok. So, let us say let me define the problem. So, let us say I have a certain concentration of ligands certain concentration of ligand molecules and I want to ask that what is the probability let us call it P bound that a receptor will have a ligand bound to a receptor has a ligand bound to it. So, what we will do is again we will make a very simple approximation we will consider this sort of a lattice model ok. So, here is my receptor molecule that is sitting over here and I have these ligands floating about in solution ok. So, we will consider a lattice model of the solution basically I will say that each microscopic volume is something let us call some V box and these ligands will occupy one of these boxes ok. Each ligand will occupy one box and then we will try to calculate the entropy and from there we will try to calculate what is the probability that this receptor will be bound to the ligand. So, let me first define again this. So, my solution for the solution I will approximate it as a lattice model. So, n boxes each of volume let us call it some V box ok. That is my model for the solution. Let us say I have l number of ligand number of ligand molecules number of ligand molecules ok and I have a single receptor molecule a single receptor molecule. So, exactly like that cartoon ok. Now of course, so when a ligand binds to the receptor it sort of lowers its energy it is energetically favorable for this ligand to come and bind to the receptor right.  So, it lowers its energy by binding to the ligand. So, that is what it would like to do energetically, but again as we discussed entropically it is going to be favorable for it not to stay bound it would like to stay in the solution. So, energetically it is favorable to be bound entropically it is favorable to be unbound and then what it will actually be or what is the probability of finding a bound the receptor with a bound ligand will depend on this competition between the energy and the entropy ok. This is clear the at least the setup is clear that ok. So, what we will first do is that we will we will calculate the partition function. Remember the partition function is the sum over all states e to the power Boltzmann factor e to the power of minus beta times the energy of that state. Now, let me say broadly there are two states one state in which the ligand is bound to a receptor and another state in which the ligand is unbound. So, let me say the energy of the bound you will have an energy of the bound state and an energy of free ligand state. So, if you have a ligand bound to the receptor ok what will be the energy of the system as a whole yes or let us say let us talk about this first if no ligand is bound to the receptor what would be the energy l into epsilon solution right all my ligands are free in solution I have l of these so l into epsilon solution. Now, if I have this bound state where one of these ligands is bound to the receptor what will be the energy of that state epsilon bound plus l minus 1 epsilon solve right one of these ligands is bound the remaining l minus 1 are in solution ok. So, at least I know these two states but there are many ways to get these states right. So, if I consider in terms of these bound state and the free state then I could say that what are the multiplicities of these states right what is omega b e to the power of minus beta e bound plus omega free e to the power of minus beta e free right where this e bound and e free we have calculated. So, what is left to calculate is this omega b and this omega f what is this omega b going to be or what is this omega f going to be. So, in this omega f I have these l ligands right which I have to arrange among these n available boxes of the solution. So, that is mcl right ncl and that is why and therefore, that will give me the entropy effect what would be omega b nc ncl minus 1 right one is bound. So, that does not have any freedom anymore you have the remaining l minus 1 ligands which are still in solution therefore, ncl minus 1 good. So, once I have that I have this partition function in principle. So, my partition function said is n factorial n factorial by l factorial n minus l factorial that is the free.  This is my full partition function. Yes yes well not really right because that would not change between these two states between the bound state and the free state you would have some factor of course, which would encapsulate the receptor mobility, but that would that would be the same here versus here right. So, effectively it would not make a difference as far as this type this question is concerned. Ok. So, it is the same. So, this is my partition function. Now, if I am interested remember I am interested in what is the probability that the receptor has a ligand bound to it. So, if I ask what is p bound now that I know the partition function can you tell me what is the probability that the receptor has a ligand bound to it? Yes, Somya. Which one by which one? First one. It is the second one divided by the partition function. These are all the states that have a receptor bound to a ligand right. Therefore, the probability that you have a receptor bound to a ligand is this n factorial by l minus 1 factorial n minus l plus 1 factorial e to the power of minus beta epsilon v minus beta l minus 1 epsilon sol divided by that whole thing divided by z right. Now, this looks bad right, but we can make a few we can try to simplify this by using sterlings and some. So, let us say we are working in the we are working in a sort of thermodynamic limit where n is much much larger than l, but l is also much much larger than 1 ok. You have lots and lots of ligands, but equivalently you have lots of much more of free space as well right. So, n much much greater than l much much greater than 1. So, for both of these n and l terms I can use a sterling approximation. So, that is what I will do. So, let me try to use it on I have time. So, let me try to use it on the partition function. So, let me see. So, z is so that expression that I have written there.  So, then in the first one in the first term of the partition function all I have left is a 1 over l right l into l minus 1 will make give me that l factorial. In the second term what I have is 1 by n minus l plus 1 right which into this will give me a n minus l plus 1 factorial and on top I have e to the power of minus beta epsilon b minus epsilon solve right. So, that this and this together gives me the l minus 1 epsilon solve this is the minus beta epsilon b. So, let me call this as some delta e this is the amount that you lower your free energy that you lower your energy by by by ligand when ligand binds to the receptor. So, let me call this as my delta some delta some delta. So, delta e is epsilon b minus. So, this is whatever is outside is outside n minus l plus 1 plus l into the power of beta delta and what I want is. So, over here was n factorial e to the power of minus beta l epsilon solve by l minus 1 factorial n minus l. Let me pull this one outside. So, n factorial by l minus 1 factorial n minus l plus 1 factorial then what I am left with is n by l. So, n by l minus 1 plus 1 by l plus e to the power of minus beta delta of the signs right. Why I wrote it in this form is that ultimately I want to put that z over here. So, I just want to get the pre factor is the same which is n factorial l minus 1 factorial n minus l plus 1 factorial which is n of course, I am missing this e to the power of minus beta l epsilon. So, now if I substitute if I put this back over there in this p bound expression I will get rid of this pre factor completely. So, p bound is going to be here again I will get e to the power of minus beta delta e right anything else beta delta e and on on the bottom I will get whatever is over here. So, n by l n by l minus 1 plus 1 by l plus e to the power of minus beta delta e ok. This is just I have just manipulated it I have got rid of this pre factor completely. I have got rid of this epsilon sol and epsilon b separately and just written everything as delta i the difference in pre energy difference in energies between a ligand and solution and a bound ligand. So, let me now multiply and divide by this term l over n. So, l by n e to the power of minus beta delta e 1 minus l by n into plus 1 by n plus l by n e to the power of minus beta delta ok. Now because I am working in this limit that n is much much greater than l is much much greater than 1. Let me neglect these terms in comparison to 1 right l by n is a small quantity 1 by n is an even smaller quantity. If I do this so in this limit what I get is my p bound is a much simpler expression for this p bound the probability that I will have a ligand bound to the receptor which is l by n e to the power of minus beta delta e divided by 1 plus l by n e to the power of minus beta delta. If you want to write in terms of concentration the total volume of the box is of course, n times v box remember each a was. So, if I multiply and divide by v box and v box ok, this is the concentration of ligands the number per in the whole volume ok and same here v box v box and let me say see I call c naught as some concentration which is a reference concentration whatever that is and then the this concentration of ligands c is nothing, but the number of ligands in this whole solution n by v box ok. If I want to write in this concentration language I might have left it here, but if I want since I asked as a function of concentration. If I want to write it in this concentration language this is c by c naught e to the power of minus beta delta e by 1 plus c sorry c by c naught e to the power of minus beta delta. So, given a certain concentration of ligands the probability that you will have a receptor which is bound to a ligand is given by this it depends on the concentration of course, but it also depends on how much pre energy how much energy you lower by binding to the receptor molecule right. So, for example, if I were to plot it if I wanted to plot this probability the probability that the ligand will be bound this p bound as a function of the concentration of ligands ok. So, if there was no ligand of course, then of course, the probability is 0 because there is nothing to bind. So, I know it will start off from here ok. If the concentration was extremely high then what would the limiting probability be? If the c went to infinity what would the probability that the receptor would be bound be 1 right. So, I know that at very high concentrations it has to go to 1 and then you can plot this and see how this goes. So, it will go something like this. This is for example, for some given value of delta e let me call it delta e 1. If I now had a greater delta e. So, for example, if this ligand receptor binding was even stronger right it lowered its energy more by binding to the receptor. So, if I now wanted to plot it for a delta e 2 where this mod of delta e 2 is greater than mod of delta e 1 which way would the curve shift would it come below or above above right. So, if I wanted to plot it for a delta e 2 then at the same concentration of ligands you would get a higher probability that the receptor is bound ok. This this this sort of a curve has a name this is a very famous equation for binding it is called the Langmuir adsorption isotherm it is called the Langmuir adsorption isotherm adsorption isotherm. This sort of a function x by 1 plus x it is also called a hill function it is called a hill function with a hill coefficient of 1 with it I will explain what it means. So, generally you can have hill functions or functions where you will have something like this raised to the power of n ok. In this case n is 1 which means this this n is called hill coefficient which means is a hill function with hill coefficient 1. Later on as we do as we continue to do problems like this you will see that in cases where you have cooperative binding where the fact that you have bound one ligand means it is more likely that you can bind another for these multivalent receptors where you can bind multiple things you will see that you will get different values of n where. So, n is in some sense a measure of cooperativity. Anyway I will come to that later. So, that is the idea. So, we have stachmic wise we have done very simple things writing down this partition function and calculating the probability should be very easy, but at least from there we have managed to get some sort of input sorry output which tells me how this probability of binding is going to depend on the concentration of ligands right. And this is yes can only go till n of course, yeah I mean, but n has is going up to infinity remember this is the thermodynamic limit yes, but this to a certain extent that is true that is true yeah let us say whatever it will ideally depend on. So, if you look at these sort of P bound plots exactly what we were plotting right. So, this is exactly what we said this is how the P bound goes as a function of the concentration of ligands these are for different values of delta E the higher the delta E. So, remember delta E the sign will always be negative because epsilon B will be smaller than epsilon solution, but as long as the so, if the magnitude of this delta E is larger. So, green, blue, then red and that is how the curves will rise up. And in fact, this is indeed of in many binding experiments you can find curves like this. So, for example, this was a drug trial where you were trying to ascertain the efficacy of two different drugs binding to a certain receptor molecule this is in some pharmacological journal. And you will see that these drugs this this is the binding probability the number of these complexes that you form l r l is the ligand r is the receptor as. So, this is the this corresponds to the probability of binding as a function of this ligand concentration. And you will see that the curves look exactly as would be predicted by this. In fact, what you can read off to a certain extent if you assume that this sort of approach is correct from these curves you can read off what would be the value of this delta E how much would the energy be made lowered by the binding of drug A to the receptor molecule versus drug B to the receptor molecule. So, although this is a very simplistic approach we have made many many approximations even so, the overall the nature of these nature of these plots that you get from this simple calculation will often correspond to these binding binding experiments for different ligands and different receptors ok. Of course, what you will be getting out if you want to get out a delta E of these experiments you will not really get the exact delta E at a molecular level, but some effective delta E which is going to be represented within the approximations of this sort of approach.


I didn't watch the video but it sounded like the family got to break the news to you. Yeah well it was really cool so last night when I got home I beat my family home by just a little bit and they came in and the doorbell rang and so I went to the door to see who it was and it was my kids they had stopped by the store and picked up a bunch of balloons and things like that and so I opened the door and they were just so fired up for me and they were like dad we're going to Las Vegas you know they were all excited and you know it was just kind of funny you know they have no idea what Las Vegas means but they were fired up and and so was I so it was really cool too I had to get to share you know that that moment with them that you're exactly right there D-Led it's just quietly doing my job I mean that's the approach that I've taken since my you know first day of my rookie year here was just you know do good today so hopefully they'll bring me back tomorrow and just kind of keep plotting away and and just do my job you know this the position you know doesn't get a whole lot of recognition as a whole and so for the most part that's a good thing you know and so it was just one of those things that it was cool to to see you know to get some some positive recognition where normally it's you know when things go wrong that's the only time you know they talk about the snapper position but just really cool experience I mean as the week goes on I mean when we start Wednesday is usually our coverage day or you know we're talking about punt we go through punt and practice kickoff things like that you know that's when we'll get some field goal work in as well so as far as the physical you know practice you know Wednesday is probably the heaviest day Thursday I'll snap a little bit more with the you know with the scout teams to get given our return team some looks and then Friday is kind of a culmination of all of those and then you know Saturday more walk-through and then obviously the game on Sundays but from the mental perspective you know I think a lot of it comes from you know the preparation that you put in in the offseason and you know just the work that you put in during the week and training camp and things like that where you know when you're in those moments when you're in the game you know you're not necessarily worried about you know what's happening you have a job to do just like anybody else does out there and so preparation is the key and trusting your training so that when you're out there you're not you know I guess limited by what you're looking for wondering what's gonna happen you've you know you put in the time and it's something that you can fall back on and trust yeah well I mean I can't speak highly enough for either one of those guys I mean Thomas obviously has had an incredible career and you know we've laughed that I didn't think that we would I would ever be snapping to him in a Falcons uniform you know and stuff like that but it's been great to have him and his leadership in the room as well you know to help with just the bond and what we have going on the field off the field and you know with coup I mean the guys earned everything that's come that's come his way and you know he's done nothing but work his tail off to be the best version of himself and he does that each and every day on the field off the field with everything you know that he does and so it's really no surprise at all for him to see the success that that he's having and also the success that Thomas is having.


Good morning. I welcome members to the seventh meeting of the Devolution Further Powers Committee. I can arrange members to switch their phones off or at least put them in the mode that won't interfere with the proceedings this morning. I know that some members will need to leave to undertake other committee duties as later on in the process of this morning, so I apologise on their behalf as they leave later on. Agenda I from one involves taking evidence on the Scotland bill and the fiscal framework. Therefore, I warmly welcome the witnesses to the meeting this morning. We have John Swinney MSP, the Deputy First Minister, Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy, Ken Thomson, the director general strategy in external affairs and Alasdor Brown, who is the head of finance. Welcome to you all. Welcome, Deputy First Minister. Thank you for attending today. I appreciate the fact that, whilst the negotiations are on-going, you have been prepared to attend in person this morning. I think that the Deputy First Minister would accept that the committee has been very patient so far in giving both governments a maximum amount of private time and space to reach an agreement on the fiscal framework. We respected the position that there would be no running commentary, although that means that, as a result, no parliamentary scrutiny to date has been able to be undertaken on the agreement itself. I am sure that you will recognise that, from both a committee and a parliamentary perspective, that is far from ideal. The Scottish Parliament is being prevented from undertaking the necessary scrutiny work because of the delay in agreement being reached. Obviously, that situation cannot continue indefinitely. I know that you have been a strong advocate about this Parliament's role in scrutinising any deal that you reach with the HM Treasury. I am sure that you will make that point to them and will continue to do so. But time is not on our side and dissolution is rapidly approaching. I am sure that you will appreciate that we will have lots of questions this morning and we must finish our proceedings by 10 am. Will you make an opening statement with that background? I am grateful for the opportunity to update the committee on the negotiation around the fiscal framework and on other issues in the Scotland Bill. I want to place on record my appreciation for the patience and forbearance of the committee in the fact that an agreement has not been able to be brought before the committee for earlier scrutiny. I intend to update the committee as far as I can this morning and subject to the agreement of the Parliamentary Bureau. The First Minister intends to update Parliament in a statement this afternoon. Paragraph 94 of the Smith commission report recommended that the devolution of further tax and spending powers to the Scottish Parliament should be accompanied by an updated fiscal framework for Scotland. Smith also recommended that the Scottish and United Kingdom Government should jointly work together to agree this framework. I have engaged with the United Kingdom Government since March last year on this task. The Joint Exchequer Committee has met 10 times to date, compromises have been made by both Governments and I remain fully committed to reaching a deal. I can set out today in broad terms where progress has been made and what further work is needed in order to reach an agreement. On 7 October I set out to Parliament the areas where we needed to reach agreement as part of an acceptable fiscal framework. Those were on the block grant adjustment for tax on the implementation and on-going costs associated with the devolution of welfare benefits and securing additional capital and resource borrowing powers. I have made significant progress with the United Kingdom Government on a number of those issues. On the financial transfers to meet implementation and administration costs, I am satisfied that the proposals before us satisfy the Smith commission recommendation that Scotland should receive a share of the costs. On capital and resource borrowing, again I believe that the proposals before us ensure that the Scottish Government will receive the powers necessary to manage tax volatility and economic shocks, whilst also securing the additional flexibility to invest in infrastructure in Scotland and so improve our economic performance. However, we have so far been unable to reach a satisfactory agreement on the adjustment of the block grant for the new tax powers. That is due to a fundamental disagreement on the issue of no detriment. My clear position is that no detriment means that if tax policy and economic performance in Scotland remains the same as in the rest of the United Kingdom, then the Scottish budget should be no better or worse off either at the point of devolution or in the future than it would have been under the current funding framework. We accept that if the Scottish Government changes policy or if our economic performance diverges from the rest of the United Kingdom, then the costs and benefits of this should fall on the Scottish budget. However, if nothing changes, then our budget shouldn't change either, compared to what it would have been without the new powers. Similarly, the UK should be no better or worse off under those arrangements. I do not think that there is any ambiguity in what the Smith commission said about those vitally important issues. I have made it clear that I consider per capita index deduction to be the block grant adjustment mechanism that best fulfills the Smith commission principles and that is fairest to the Scotland and the United Kingdom. There is a clear consensus of support amongst academic experts and commentators for per capita index deduction as the method which best meets the Smith principles. Furthermore, the relevant committees of both the Scottish and United Kingdom parliaments have now endorsed per capita index deduction as the most appropriate mechanism for block grant adjustment. As I have said, this mechanism has also been supported by members of the Smith commission from four of the five parties who took part. The UK Government does not agree with the definition of no detriment and so far all the options that they have proposed include varying degrees of detriment to the Scottish budget. We continue to discuss the mechanism for adjusting the block grant with the UK Government but I will only agree to a proposal that achieves the Smith principle of no detriment in a way that is effective, transparent and sustainable. To summarise the progress that we have made, I believe that we have reached an acceptable agreement on all issues with the exception of the key question, the method of block grant adjustment. The reason for that fact is that there remains a fundamental difference on the principle of no detriment. I believe that no detriment means that our budget should not be cut as a consequence of the devolution of those powers. The UK Government takes a different view. The negotiations that I have said, I need to conclude soon, I remain committed to sharing as much information as I can so that both parliaments have time to scrutinise the framework and the Scottish Parliament can consider it alongside the bill and the legislative consent motion. There has been progress, that is good to hear. Obviously, we are now down to the area of indexation and block grant adjustment. The no detriment element had two elements to it, of course. It had no detriment to the Scottish position but it also effectively said on the second element that I think I got it right. There should be no detriment in regard to the impact on the rest of the UK. From what I have seen from public commentary, the Scottish Government has attempted to persuade the UK Government from the methodology that is being used that there would be no detriment for the UK taxpayer as a result of the proposals put forth by the Scottish Government. Can you walk us through that so that it can be a bit clearer to us? All that we have obviously seen is the public commentary. There are two Smith principles of no detriment. The first is essentially the principle that I have outlined in my opening statement whereby if tax policy and economic performance in Scotland remains the same as in the rest of the UK, then Scotland will be the same. There should be no better or no worse off. Equally, the United Kingdom should be no better or no worse off from the current arrangements. There have been some issues raised about the application of per capita index deduction whereby, in certain circumstances, for example, if the United Kingdom Government was to decide to increase taxation, for example, in the rest of the UK, to pay for investment, investment in the health service, that would be the raising of a devolved tax, a devolved tax in the rest of the UK, which would create a Barnett consequential from which we would be a beneficiary. I accept that that contradicts the second no detriment principle that was inherent in the Smith commission report. We have put forward mechanisms that would temper that fact within the per capita index deduction methodology. I have accepted that there is an issue that creates an unwarranted gain for Scotland that has to be addressed as a consequence of the arrangements that we put in place. Why have the Treasury not accepted that modified proposal from your perspective? It is for the United Kingdom Government to explain their stance. I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland is coming to the committee later on today and I am sure that we will be happy to address that point. I come back to the fundamental question that we have wrestled with, which is the principle of no detriment. Fundamentally, we are not in agreement with the principle of no detriment means that the Scottish budget should, in no way, be subject to systematic reduction as a consequence of the devolution of these powers. That is the issue that we have wrestled with throughout the negotiations that have been under way. You might be reluctant, Deputy First Minister, to get into some of the numbers on this, but there has been some public commentary, obviously. In terms of the position that the UK Treasury finds itself in now, have the Scottish Government made an estimate of what the potential impact would be on the Scottish budget from the most recent position from the Treasury? The approach of the UK Government has involved a variety of proposals and there have been public assessments made of what the implications of those proposals would be. My estimate on the current proposals that we have from the UK Government in that respect is that we could be looking at a reduction in the Scottish budget of in excess of £2 billion over a 10-year period. That, to me, was not what the Smith commission was recommending. It was not what the Smith commission had in its mind when it said that there should be no detriment arising out of the devolution of these powers. That is the fundamental issue with which we still wrestle. If the differences could appear quite fundamental, can a deal be done? Do you have any idea how long that might be? I think that what I have tried to do today is to demonstrate to the committee, and I will take this opportunity to reiterate it to the committee. On all other issues, I believe that we are in a position of agreement. I would be in a position to recommend a deal, to part the deal that is currently on the table with the exception that I cannot recommend the position that we have reached on the block grant adjustment. I think that a lot of progress has been made. There have been compromises on both sides to get us to the position that we find ourselves in now. The discussions about the block grant adjustment have not just cropped up in the last 24 hours. They have been part of the discussion for the entirety of the 10 meetings of the Joint Exchequer Committee. We have been wrestling with the same point for all that time. That is not a new issue that has just cropped up. It has been a persistent issue with which we have been trying to resolve the details. I am sure that everybody else would like to repeat that. You have referred to some movement that you have been able to make in terms of concerns about the second principle about taxpayer fairness. I think that some suggestions were made by the Scottish Affairs Committee on that. Is the proposal that you have made in relation to the example that you gave about extra spending on devolved areas in England? Is that the substance of that, or is there anything else that you have offered or could offer that was consistent with the per capita principle that would help to allay some fears, if you have any legitimate fears? I make two points in response to Mr Chisholm. The first is to say that he is absolutely right to link that question to the Barnett formula, because the principle that the Smith commission established in clause 95.1, that the Barnett formula should continue to determine the size of the Scottish budget. That is essentially the test that any mechanism must perform against. We can work out what Barnett would give us in terms of public expenditure. Any block grant adjustment must therefore be tested against that line. If it is flat as a pancake, then it meets the test. That is what per capita index deduction does. It is flat as a pancake with Barnett. If you look at anything that delivers a lower line than Barnett, then that is detriment, and the proposals with which I am dealing involve detriment. Mr Chisholm is absolutely right to link it back to Barnett, because that was the commitment that was given in advance of the referendum. That was what was taken forward by the Smith commission as clause 95.1. It determines the test on which this issue has to be resolved. The second point that Mr Chisholm made was about what variation could be undertaken. The Scottish Affairs Select Committee, I thought, explored this issue very openly and effectively and brought forward some suggestions and some questions about how per capita index deduction could be adapted to meet those particular tests. I have offered those mechanisms. If there were other ways in which I could consider adjusting that approach to try to resolve the issue, I would be happy to consider that. I do not consider that to be a closed issue. If there were other ways in which we could adjust the application of per capita index deduction to address any potential anomalies, I would be prepared to do so within the consistency of the principles of the no detriment approach that was set out by Smith. It seems to me that the Treasury is behaving as the Treasury always does behave. In just looking ahead, does the Deputy First Minister see any way of getting out of this impasse? I suppose many people might think that it really needs to get the Prime Minister's attention. He is obviously occupied with other matters. Just looking at the week ahead, is there any more meeting scheduled? Is there any suggestion that the Prime Minister would get involved? Because it looks as if, as far as negotiations with the Treasury goes, there is an impasse? I want to characterise the discussions as fairly as I possibly can do. I think that there has been a great deal of progress made in these discussions to the point that I can come before the committee and say that all other issues are resolved in a fight. I have not got everything the way that I would like it to be, but I think that there is a perfectly reasonable proposition on the table on all other questions, apart from the block grant adjustment. The block grant adjustment issue is, in my view, at odds with the Smith commission report. I do not consider that I have the right to negotiate away what was agreed by my colleagues in the Smith commission of all parties and what was set out as the response of the Smith commission to the challenge arising from the demand for extra powers after the referendum. There has been a good effort to try to resolve those issues, but there is a fundamental point of principle that we are not yet able to get across. What is the means of addressing that? I am pretty clear that we need to see movement from the United Kingdom Government on this question, because I do not believe that I am in a position to move forward. There is a way from the principle that the Smith commission set out and what was in the mind of the Smith commission when it formulated its recommendations. I think that we are going to have a lot of this going back around the same questions this morning, but I want to be clear about the UK Government's approach. It seems to be that they must find a formula that provides fairness for the rest of the UK taxpayers to sum up. However, this morning, you seem to have suggested, Deputy First Minister, that the per capita index deduction model, plus the adjustments for any changes that the UK Government might make to—for example, you gave us in health if there was a change in income tax in the rest of the UK, which then went to health. If it was not a change put in place, that would provide additional funding through Barnett, which would not be fair to the rest of the UK taxpayers. Am I correct in saying that you have accepted that the per capita index deduction model with the adjustments that you would not accept additional monies that would otherwise have come through Barnett for changes in taxation in devolved areas in the rest of the UK? That is correct. I am struggling to understand why the UK Government objects to that. That seems to meet Smith on the one hand, but it also seems to meet its argument that we have to be fair to the rest of the UK taxpayers. I am struggling, but I am not understanding why they have a problem with that. The important point is in relation to two points in that respect. One is on the issue of tax policy decisions, which is the point that I have made in relation to accepting where tax policy changes are driven by UK Government actions and approaches that we need to take account of in per capita index deduction. That is exactly what we have done. The second point, which is the fundamental answer to Mr Max's question, is in relation to the question of what is judged to be fair in those arrangements to the rest of the UK. The test of fairness that I am applying is the test that the Smith commission applied, which was that Scotland and the rest of the UK should be no better or no worse off as a consequence of the devolution of those powers, from what would have been the position had those powers not been devolved. That is essentially the test set by clause 95.1 of the Smith commission report in relation to the application of the Barnett formula, which of course was one of the central commitments of the vow made just days before the referendum. I simply want to make sure that we are consistent with what would have been delivered under the Barnett formula and that the UK Government takes a different view. The UK Government's position is that Smith seems to be clear that the agreement reached was that it is not the devolution of the power itself that causes changes, it is the use of the power that causes change. Therefore, the Scottish Government could be better off or worse off on the basis of that change and you would have to live with that risk or that benefit. I accept that there are two stages to that. From the devolution of the powers, I believe that I am well-founded in this view from the Smith commission conclusions that we should be no better or no worse off as a consequence of the devolution of the powers. The second point is that when we then exercise those powers, if there is a revenue gain, we get to hold on to it. If there is a revenue loss, we have to deal with the consequences of that. That is the principle of fiscal responsibility that is also inherent in the Smith commission report. There is a difference between the devolution of the powers to the exercise of those powers and the living with the consequences of exercising those powers. If a future Scottish Government, let's assume for a moment that those powers were devolved, and a future Scottish Government did nothing to change the taxation levels in relation to what the taxation levels were in the rest of the UK, then under the model being proposed at the moment by the UK Government, what you are saying is that the Scottish Government's budget would fall by, I think you said, £2 billion over a period of 10 years. By doing nothing, effectively, we end up in a situation where our budget is cut by £2 billion over that period of time. As a consequence of acquiring those powers, I don't believe for a moment that the members of the Smith commission were taking the view that when they were arguing for the devolution of those powers and the application of the principle of no detriment on the devolution of those powers, that the Smith commission had in its mind that there should be, essentially, an automatic reduction in the budget of the Scottish Parliament as a consequence. I agree with the tenor of your remarks, Deputy First Minister, on the process being all but agreed other than this one point of fundamental disagreement. The committee very strongly understands that. In that context, has the First Minister spoken or discussed that with the Prime Minister, as Malcolm Chisholm was asking earlier? There has been a discussion between the First Minister and the Prime Minister, which took place, I think, about 10 days ago, if I am correct in my dates, if I need to correct that, I will do that, but it is of that order. Obviously, there has been more recent discussion with the Treasury. I was in the Treasury on Friday, I met with the chief secretary and with the chancellor of the Exchequer, and yesterday I had further telephone conversations with both the chancellor and the chief secretary. Do you think that it was fair to suggest to you earlier on that the way in which this fundamental disagreement is going to be resolved is at that level, is at the First Minister and Prime Minister level? I think that that is, in my view, other than parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary discussion, the other channel that exists to try to resolve this issue. Thank you. Would it be fair to assume, therefore, that when the First Minister updates Parliament this afternoon she would have something to say on that, given that that is obviously the one area that does need to be resolved? Yes. Thank you. The other other question that I wanted to ask is, I am trying to, again, like other colleagues, understand what the Treasury's position is, and you are right that we can obviously ask the Secretary of State that later today. At any time, have they played in the changes that are going on within England that, in particular, the chancellor is making much of? Does that have any bearing on the financial model and the specific per capita discussions that have been taking place? Mr Scott will appreciate that. I am trying very hard to be open with the committee, but without breaching the nature of the negotiation process in which I have been involved. I can surmise that the United Kingdom Government has, in its mind, the implications of what might be agreed in this particular discussion for other parts of the United Kingdom. I do not think that that is a unique process. I think that Tavish Scott too, I think. Maybe rerun it again within this context. There is an agreement within reach that is still the big difficult bit to go. Do you see your role in that complete now? Do you have space in your diary put aside this week to have further talks on this issue? What date does the First Minister have her diary to meet with the Prime Minister this week? I want to make it clear to the committee that the Scottish Government, the First Minister and myself will make ourselves available for any conversation that is required to try to advance those discussions. I do not think that anybody could layer charge at me that I have not allocated the necessary amount of time to try to resolve this at great inconvenience. If Mr McNeill wishes to consult with my constituents who were expecting to see me on Friday and who did not see me on Friday because I went to London to pursue those discussions, he will understand the sense of priority that I have given to this particular issue. The work that you have put in, I would suggest that you have taken it as far as you have possibly taken it. I am just taking your remarks on what you have said this morning. I am looking for this next closing stage and what we would expect from a negotiation like this, where the Prime Minister and the First Minister come together when this week are they coming together to close this deal? I think that discussions will be pursued to try to do that, but I cannot give the committee any fixed dates on that question. There has been some suggestion from some quarters, Deputy First Minister, that essentially a means of breaking the impasse would be for the Treasury to say that we will underwrite any shortfall in the Scottish funding and we can review it all after a three to five year period. What is your take on that position that has been advanced? The question really relates to what is the underlying method of block grant adjustment. In all my discussions on this question, I think that I have come ever more sharply to the view that that issue cannot be fudged, it cannot be put off. If you put it off to some review at a later stage without knowing what is the reference point or the anchor point for the block grant adjustment, you have uncertainty about what the block grant adjustment would be. I do not think that that is a stable mechanism that is the type of requirement that the Smith commission put upon us. Your view would be that what needs to be put in place needs to be sustainable in the long term. It cannot be something that is put in place in order to get a deal done and then we will all come back to it in five years time. If it has not worked the way that was intended by Smith, we can unpick it. I suppose that opens up future risk in terms of who is going to be around the negotiating table at that stage as well. I think that there has to be a very clear understanding of what happens if an issue was to be put off to review at a later date. There has to be a clear understanding of what happens if agreement cannot be reached at that stage. If there is not a clear understanding of what happens at that stage, that bridge uncertainty within the details of what will be the financial framework that underpins the devolution of those powers. That would be a significant increase in the risk that would be carried as a consequence. I guess that the following on that would be in terms of what the UK Government is continuing to put forward. We have discussed the no detriment issue. Has the chief secretary outlined in detail what his understanding of no detriment is? I mean, you have been very plain to us today about what you see as no detriment. I think that that would be the view that this committee has taken of what no detriment is. Has the chief secretary given an understanding of how he interprets no detriment from his perspective, given that he obviously is at odds about what it means? Yes, he has given a very clear explanation of his view of no detriment. Just before we move on to another area, the key issue for this committee is when more information is going to be available for us to scrutinise the agreement. I realise that there is no deal until everything is sorted out. Obviously, there is a lot of information available of the areas of agreement that already exist. That might be an agreement by two Governments, but this committee has not agreed that those areas are areas that we are satisfied on. I wonder how soon we can see some of that information so that we can begin as a committee to make a judgment on whether or not the areas that have already been agreed on that we find acceptable. I have to preface my remarks in response to your question, convener, by saying that I have tried to give the committee the clearest possible sense of what are the remaining issues in relation to the resolution of this issue, and it is in fact the block grant adjustment, as I have set out. The committee has to understand that I am not suggesting that there is an agreement here already. As you have just said, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but what I am trying to say to the committee is that if we could resolve the block grant adjustment issue, I would be able to bring forward an agreement to the committee really very quickly. However, I have to be realistic with the committee that if I cannot resolve the block grant adjustment issue, I cannot see how I can bring a wider agreement to the committee for scrutiny, and I cannot bring part of the agreement to the committee for scrutiny because nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. I understand that point. The final question that I will ask before I go to Stuart McMillan would be, if there is no agreement, will you publish the papers, at least so that we can understand the detail, even though there is no agreement on the table? I have committed publicly that I will publish all documentation that is relevant to the discussions before dissolution of Parliament. Stuart McMillan. Good morning, Deputy First Minister. I have a couple of questions regarding the fiscal rules and borrowing. I have listened to what you have said this morning, and things have certainly progressed in that particular area. One of the underlying features of the whole fiscal arrangements should be around fairness. You did say that both sides have compromised on a number of areas. In a position to provide the committee with any details on any levels of compromise that have been undertaken by both sides on the issues of the fiscal rules and borrowing. I prefer not to go into detail beyond what I have said, other than to say that I believe that the position that we have reached on capital borrowing provides us with increased flexibility in relation to the undertaking of capital investment activity. On resource borrowing, I think that additional flexibility has been generated to enable us to deal with both economic shocks that are Scottish specific and the issue of tax volatility, which will be a more significant consideration for the Scottish Government in due course. In terms of the discussions, have discussions between the two Governments included whether or not the UK Government should have a particular stance on bailing out of the Scottish Government if that was required? It is not terminology that I would recognise. I am very clear that we operate within fiscal rules under the current arrangements and they are obligatory fiscal rules. If there are different set of fiscal rules that were to apply with the acquisition of new powers, then we would have to operate under those obligatory fiscal rules. We have to make sure that we live within them and that the parameters of fiscal flexibility, particularly in relation to resource borrowing, should be sufficient to enable the Scottish Government to exercise fiscal responsibility. We should be prepared and able to do that in all circumstances. On the borrowing thing, before I come to Tavish Scott, in general terms, I realise that you cannot go into some of the detail obviously. Our committee had a preference in our report that we produced for a prudential borrowing regime. Is it in that particular sphere or is it more about higher borrowing limits being available to a future Scottish Government? The borrowing arrangements that I consider to be satisfactory are within the context of a framework for borrowing, which is not prudential. Can I just ask—you answered the convener earlier on by saying that you would publish all the papers prior to dissolution whether to be no agreement, which begs the question, if there is no agreement, is that it? Is the bill dead? What does happen at that stage? Because presumably whatever Government is elected after may—I would have thought—want to take forward and try and reach agreement? What is your perspective on what happens if we literally do achieve nothing before we all cease to become elected members? That is a particularly difficult question. I think that the issue is most easily resolved by getting to a fiscal agreement about that. I do not think that we should delude ourselves that the issue becomes any easier, the later it goes on. I think that the discussions in a sense become more prolonged and protracted potentially. My hope is that we can resolve those issues and resolve them timurously so that we can proceed to give legislative consent on the Scotland bill. It has always been my position that that was what we should try to do. I know that the committee will understand that that has to be on an acceptable basis. I agree with that, and I think that we all do. On Duncan Neill's point, is it this week's make-or-break? We are all under enormous pressure on time, not least for the Government itself. Is this week it? Throughout the discussions with the UK Government, I have been stressing the importance that I attach to making sure that Parliament has the opportunity to properly scrutinise this arrangement. I have felt distinctly uncomfortable for some considerable time about the fact that I have not been able to open up this process to scrutinise it. It is not the way that this institution works. It is not the way that I have been—essentially—experienced parliamentary scrutiny. It is a very open institution, and I have not been able to fulfil that. That has been profoundly uncomfortable for me for some considerable time. I feel that I have absolutely no alternative today. I am afraid to share some detail. There may be some exception taken to the amount of detail that I have shared with the committee this morning, but I am afraid that I just have to be lived with, because I cannot see how I can sit here and not answer the committee's reasonable questions on this point. It is so important that Parliament has confidence in the arrangements that have been negotiated on its behalf, and free, if Parliament judges it, to say that we do not believe that those arrangements are strong enough or appropriate enough. I am very mindful of parliamentary opinion. I can listen to what members have said. I can look at what committees have said for a sustained period. I am aware of what Parliament expects to see from this agreement. I am confident that, on all issues other than the block grant adjustment, I have a set of proposals that I could confidently defend with Parliament, but I could not defend the proposals that have been put to me on block grant adjustment other than the ones that I have advanced on per captain's deduction. As we move on to areas of welfare now, it is fair to say at this stage that, given your comments to the Deputy First Minister, this committee cannot be in a situation where we are rubbing rubber stamping something at the end. I think that you accept that from the comments that you make. We need to make these points later to the Secretary of State. It is imperative that we are able to scrutinise the detail of this agreement. I think that we would all be very anxious if we were in that situation of simply rubber stamping, because we need to put a considered report with lots of detail in front of the Parliamentarians of the Chance to examine the detail. We will leave that point, that particular bit of questioning at that stage. In Linda, you want to move into areas of welfare. Deputy First Minister, it seems quite clear, both from what you have said today and from what we have heard in evidence to this committee, that neither the spirit nor the substance of the Smith agreement is being met in terms of block grant adjustment. You said that you had recognised that there had to be compromises in both sides on other things that you feel have come together. Can I ask whether, in terms of both welfare and the work programme, both of those things have impacts on the other, whether you feel that the potential agreement that you have reached on that meets the spirit and substance of the Smith agreement? One of the issues in relation to employability support is the fact that, since the Smith commission agreement was made in November of 2014, and a commitment given to devolve employment programmes, particularly the work programme, the United Kingdom Government has changed its policy position on these programmes and has particularly reduced the amount of funding that has been made. That, quite clearly, has been an issue of concern for us. In November 2014, the prospect of devolution of employability support was a greater prospect than what is proposed to be devolved by the UK Government when the process comes for devolution. At some stage in the future, there is a diminished proposition on employment support than what we would have imagined was the case when the Smith commission reported in November 2014. That has been an issue of discussion with the UK Government and one where I have to say that I have not got all that I wanted but I am prepared to live with the consequences of what has now been the way that we have reached on that issue. Have we got better than the Pretty Battles argument to us in a letter that said that the budget would be reduced by 87 per cent? Is that still the area that we are in? That is still the area that we are in. That is fine. Quite clearly, neither the spirit nor the substance in that regard was met. I think that what I am trying to say to the committee this morning is that in all the issues that we have looked over, we have not managed to reach conclusions that are perfect from my point of view. In the round, I am prepared to look at them and say that that looks to me to be a reasonable set of propositions. We have broadly got to that position on a whole host of questions, but the block grant adjustment remains the stand-out issue, which is of such significance that I could not in all faith say to the committee that I am going to hold this deal up because of employability arrangements. I am not ecstatic about them, but I am not going to hold up. I think that you are ever reasonable, Mr Swinney. One of the things that was of general concern on the Smith commission was that there should be no detriment to individuals as a consequence of taking over powers on welfare, and indeed there was the view that we should be able to create and top up. Can I ask if you feel that the potential agreement reached matches those things? Certainly, on the—since we move over on this question, I think that more importantly on to the contents of the Scotland bill and in this respect, I think that the latter clauses that were added to the Scotland bill by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons gave us the necessary flexibility to enable us to do that, so I am satisfied with those legislative provisions. Clearly, we have to make sure that all necessary financial arrangements are in place to make sure that those powers could be exercised. Would it be fair to say that that is all fine in one regard, as long as you get a reasonable and fair settlement matching the Smith commission on adjustment of the block grant? Without that, everything else would be up in the air. That is why it is so important that we recognise the equality of significance of both the Scotland bill and the fiscal framework. We cannot give legislative consent to the Scotland bill without having a fiscal framework that enables us to know how the basis upon which we would be exercising the powers in the Scotland bill. I accept entirely the point that Linda Fabiani makes, that there has to be an acceptable fiscal framework in place to enable us to exercise those responsibilities. The headline top stuff affects the individual. Following on from Linda Fabiani's questions, has there been any movement when it comes to welfare administration costs? Because it seemed that there was a considerable gulf there to be bridged, the HM Treasury were estimating that only £50 million was needed to cover all transition costs, whereas the Scottish Government felt that on-ground costs were needed. Does that mean that the growing administration costs for a devolved welfare system might be in the region of £200 million upwards? We have reached a position that I consider to be acceptable on the implementation and operational costs arising from the devolution of those responsibilities. There has been some positive movement there that you feel will be acceptable to Parliament. Obviously, the acquisition of new powers to the Parliament involves ever closer working with Westminster, and the committee spent an inconsiderable amount of time looking at inter-governmental relations. Do you feel that this has been a positive experience? Are you content with the way that it has been going? It is quite a question to consider whether it has been a positive experience or not. It has certainly been the experience. There is no doubt about that. I think that we have to see this. This is not just about inter-governmental working. This is also about a negotiation of its nature. It is not going to be a straightforward or easy process. There have been some tough issues to crack. I think that we have managed to crack a lot of those issues. It has involved compromise on my part, compromise on the part of the United Kingdom Government. I welcome that. We have got very far along the process, but there remain outstanding issues that have to be resolved. I think that what I have been anxious to do is to also make sure that in the inter-governmental, where we stray out of negotiations and inter-governmental working, we have in place mechanisms that will effectively and satisfactorily ensure that we can undertake good inter-governmental working to advance issues that will require a lot of joint working to implement the details of the Scotland Bill and the details of the fiscal framework. I would like to pursue this a bit, because clearly, if the set-up costs and the running costs of the welfare administration are greater than you expect in any deal that can be reached, then there has to be some means and a time scale in which those can be reassessed. That and many other things beg the question following on from what Alison Johnstone has said about a review period given the agreement that could be reached in the next short period and its implementation within the next two or three years. Has there been any discussions about how that might take place? On the question of the nature of the fiscal agreement, I have very much had in my mind the requirement of the Smith commission that we should be agreeing arrangements and then not constantly revisiting them. I think that that is the best way in which I could summarise the Smith commission agreement. I have been trying to get to sustainable arrangements that would not require to be reconsidered. When I, for example, have signed up to anything, we reached a point of agreement about the set-up costs and the implementation costs on welfare administration powers. I consider that to be closed, so that is up to me. If it costs us more, then it is an issue that I have to resolve as a finance minister. If it costs us less, then we have managed to operate something more efficiently and we have a gain out of it. If it costs us more to implement administration of such matters, I could not go back to the UK Government and say that I need you to reopen the issue, because I have entered into the negotiation of good faith, we have the agreement and that is an end to the matter. The only question of review has come into the question of trying to make progress on the block grant adjustment, but I dealt with questions from Mr McDonald earlier on about what we have to be mindful of in entering into a review on some questions in relation to the block grant if we do not know what would be the basis for resolving any disagreement about the nature of the block grant adjustment mechanism that might prevail, should there be no agreement in that review? I am going to come back to you, First Minister, because Alison Johnstone in fairness asked you a pretty fair question in terms of the amounts of money that were involved in welfare administration. You have told us pretty significantly already in terms of the employment programme area with a reduction from £53 million to £7 million in terms of what is available, so there is a compromise being made there. There is obviously some level of compromise being made in the level in regard to the administrative costs on welfare. For this committee to understand just how much, this is the tone of the negotiation that I am trying to get to here, because you have compromised there, there has obviously been some compromise in the area of welfare administration. I think that it would be fair for the committee to understand a bit more about what the scale of that was, because we can make a judgment at some stage. If you are being reasonable and compromising, we can ask the Secretary of State later what you have been reasonable and compromising on to get to a deal. To enable us to get to that situation, being able to have more information from you on that area would be very helpful. I do not think that I have placed on the record the numbers that you have said about employability. I think that I have been careful to say that the issues are off. There is no change in the UK Government's policy position on the approach to employability supports. I have been careful not to put specific numbers on the record, and I do not particularly feel keen to do so today. The point that I would make in relation to the welfare administration issues is that the Smith commission recommended that there should be a share of the costs that are paid by the UK Government. That is the outcome that we have been trying to secure. We have secured that outcome that is consistent with that definition. I would like to push you further, but I know that that is not going to get me any further in that area. I am sure that you understand the tone of negotiations that have helped us. I think that I can help the committee so far as to say that I have not got everything that I wanted out of this process. I am sure that the UK Government would say the same thing. I am sure that those things would rather not have had to have agreed with me about it. I am sure that I can give the committee a flavour about that. You have given the syndication areas where you have been compromising and being reasonable. We will see what they say later on in the evening. I was just going to say something that you might expect me to say. Is it not fair to say that you built in plenty of room for compromising your initial figure? I noticed that the estimated cost for welfare set up costs of up to £660 million. Less than two years ago, Alex Salmond was telling us that he could set up a whole independent Scottish administration for under £200 million. It is assuredly that you built a margin in there that you could negotiate away. Let me just say this. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that the set up cost for the social security arrangements involved in the Scotland Bill is £350 million. What has been agreed as the UK Government's contribution towards that is less than that figure? I am correct to say that that is £50 million. The common three has been that it is £50 million. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that the set up costs under the Scotland Bill are £350 million. The agreement that I have got to with the UK Government on their contribution to that one-off cost is less than that figure. Satisfied, Mr Jordan? Indeed. In that case, we will go to Rob Gibson. I think that he wants to ask a question around Crown Estate areas. Yes, indeed. In the Scotland Bill context, the committee has written to the Treasury about concerns about the memorandum of understanding being too restrictive and lacking in clarity. Has there been any further movement in that in the recent time that the negotiations have covered or is that part of the area that has been agreed to? On the provisions within the Scotland Bill, no. The United Kingdom Government has maintained its position on the Scotland Bill. The committee will be familiar with the position of the Scottish Government in that respect. In relation to the financial provisions, we have been involved in negotiations as part of this exercise. There is a proposition on the table in relation to the Crown Estate, which is not perfect, but it is something that I am prepared to live with. I think that we have come to the end of our discussions this morning. Thank you for giving us your time. We have a window of opportunity that is closing us as far as the solution and the Parliament is concerned. We encourage the UK Government to come to a conclusion as early as possible so that the committee can go about its job of scrutinising the fiscal framework and the issues that remain with the Secretary of State. On behalf of the people of Scotland, that will affect whether that is what we are doing. Thank you very much to you and your officials for attending this morning. We meet tonight again in video conferencing with the Secretary of State. The time is 6.45. I close this meeting of the committee.


Ball is now with Bobby Pointon on the left-hand side and he spreads one across to the opposite flank to Louis Chulton. Chulton goes back to Charlie Wood. Wood then finds Harvey Rowe just on the halfway line and here is Noah Wadsworth. He plays one forward into Cole Roberts who's originally challenged but he still manages to keep possession and plays a good ball down the left-hand side to Bobby Pointon who plays it in. Oh and Yungby might get there. He does get there. He shoots and he scores! A brilliant finish with his left foot by Dylan Yungby and Bradford City's number nine has taken them one step closer to the EFL youth alliance northeast title. A very good finish by Dylan Yungby who has to his goals tally for the season. Looked like he wasn't going to get there originally but he persisted and he got the ball and it was a very good finish once he got it on that trusted left foot of his and Bradford City's under-19s lead at Cheepside a win today. Wood secure them the title and they've made a very good start. There's a good move from Bradford City's under-19s. Chulton originally had the ball and some nice play between Pointon and Rowe and then there's Wadsworth ball in towards Roberts which Roberts did have a bit of difficulty controlling but once he got it under his spell he did very well played a good ball down the line towards Pointon. Looked like his cross was going to be cleared by the Grimsby defender but Yungby did well got it out of his feet and struck a beauty of his left foot into the back of the net. So a look at the goal again. Very nice touch away from the defender and what a finish that is. Dylan Yungby with a brilliant goal. There is City who lead. Martin Drury there giving his orders from the touch line. Here is Chulton now. City looks to come forward again. Ball played into Charlie Wood who marodes forward now. Wood carries on to Norman and Norman bats a wood. Wood's in here. Wood chips it and Wood makes it two. What a brilliant finish by Charlie Wood. Roller the War experienced players in this team. That is a fantastic finish from the Bradford City under-19s midfielder. He saw the goalkeeper rushing out. He knew his only option was to chip the ball and what a finish that is and that surely seals the EFL youth alliance northeast title for Bradford City's under-19s. Absolutely brilliant finish from Charlie Wood. A great burst forward from him through the midfield. He receives it back from Norman and once he gets one-on-one with a goalkeeper he keeps his composure very well and that makes it two-nil. Bradford City's day looks like it is going to end in glory. Two-nil away at Groomsby Town. Surely now. That is the title.