and welcome to Discovery. My foundation's weekly program on the arts. I'm Priya Sarkar, Director of Arts at Night, and today I'll be discussing how to center the arts in your city's present and future with Connie Martinez, CEO of SD Creates, a network of creatives and an artist and an art service organization based in San Jose, California. Thank you for joining us. Connie, welcome. Thank you, Priya. Thank you for being here. I'm so glad to be here. So for our folks who might not be familiar with your work, Connie's career spans decades in the arts, business and civic leadership and bringing those together in service of artists and communities. And I'm so glad to get to talk about this important topic with you today, Connie. I just wanna briefly say to viewers that we will be doing some Q and A toward the end. So please submit any questions you might have in the Zoom chat or if you're watching on Facebook Live into the comments function there. So Connie, maybe we could just start briefly with learning a little bit more about SB Creates and if you could just tell us a little bit about the work that you do. Sure, you started by saying we are an arts-serving organization. So that's where I would start, so a nonprofit. And in some circles, we would be considered an intermediary for the arts. In others, there's slices of what we do that's definitely in the arts council lane. But in Silicon Valley, we call ourselves venture cultureists. And so we use the lens of our local culture and what resonates here. So how that translates into our work is that we hold a portfolio of about a hundred arts organizations and we steward their success. And all of our work falls into three categories, building the capacity of our arts ecosystem, raising their visibility and voice or increasing access to the arts. So that's sort of the organizing principle and we embrace the ecosystem as if they're our portfolio. Thank you, that's really helpful. So as we think about those three areas in which your work is concentrated, those are things that were essential prior to the pandemic and I think some would say have become perhaps even more important to focus on given what's happening now. But as you look back on your decades of work in this area and the work that SBQ8 has been doing, what do you see as being some of the key challenges that you've seen when arts and culture hasn't necessarily been included in an integral way in community planning or development or anything also that you've seen where it's actually been addressed, the key challenge that's been addressed in really what you would use a successful way as you think about recurring themes over the years. So specifically to the challenge, as you can imagine, and I know you have an audience that's beyond Silicon Valley, but just the noise and to compete with the iconic power behind our tech industry and to actually be noticed, I think that's a huge challenge. And so our approach has been less about trying to be in the center and more about integrating ourselves into all these civic conversations. And so the challenge is, is that there's not one simple entry point and so much of the Valley's leadership and the progress we make is really connected to the networks. And so you have to actually be in the network. And so the time that it takes that for those of us who are in the sector to sort of dedicate ourselves to going beyond the arts community and actually being present in networks that aren't the usual suspects, if you will. And so there's the issue of getting attention in a Valley that's of zero on ones and iconic innovation and global recognition. So there's that piece. And then it's spending the time to develop the relationships because that's where you actually make inroads. So I think that's the challenge side. On the upside is that once you do engage because the Valley is so collaborative and in fact, logic and reason, you can bring logic and reason into those conversations, but always sprinkle it with the heart. So you lead with head, if you will, because we live in our heads in Silicon Valley, but you never let go of the heart. And so again, it depends on what the conversation's about. It depends on who's in the conversation.  Did I answer that question, Priya? You answered it beautifully. And I guess I'd love for you to maybe just kind of talk a little bit more if we follow that thread a little bit. I think one of the things that anyone who's sort of working in this space and advocating for arts and culture to be part of those conversations, whether it's central to or integrated within these community discussions. And I should acknowledge, I think on this episode, we probably have folks tuning in who are artists, who are with arts organizations, arts and cultural organizations, and also who are probably in those other sectors, who also care about how to move a community forward. And so I guess one of the things that I think continues to be a bit of a tension within arts advocacy sort of conversations is what arguments work. Obviously acknowledging different things land with different audiences and as you just mentioned. But I think that what keeps coming up now and then is this question of whether to emphasize arts, and I'm totally using the shorthand of arts for arts sake, but recognizing that's a shorthand, but essentially those sort of the benefits or the intrinsic value that art has, the people view art to have, versus then there's other community benefits that we also know the arts and culture brings. And in fact, a recent study commissioned by Knight Foundation, the Community Tie Study, examined many different parameters of what cultivates community bonding and community togetherness and one of the key elements was in fact, arts and culture. And so what have you found to be, it sounds like you emphasize different components of that depending on who you're speaking with, but I wonder if you could tease apart a little bit more, maybe even if you have an example or two of how you found approaching that differently has worked. Okay, so I'm gonna set aside a moment that the elected officials, the issue of economic impact is always relevant to them. And that's kind of in the small business category of what do we generate as an industry in terms of local economic impact? In Silicon Valley, that's pretty tough to make that an argument when you're talking to the titans of industry. In fact, when we've done research on this, the entire ecosystem in Silicon Valley is equal to one small division of one company. So to make that argument doesn't work. What I have found recently, and I was invited to be part of the Silicon Valley Recovery Roundtable, 59 liters, C-suite level of Silicon Valley heavily weighted towards industry, so I was the only arts person on there and had an opportunity to get to know a small group of high level executives from industry over the course of a couple of months. And what I learned in those conversations is that once again, as I referenced earlier, you lead with a had logic reason and all of that. And so what resonated with them is when I was able to talk about the industry, the arts and culture industry as a community serving small business, okay? So that we don't get recognized when a region comes together and says, let's save small business. We're not necessarily recognized in that realm. And we're not recognized or prioritized in the realm of basic needs nonprofits. So like we're in between. And so my value proposition was that we have an industry, we have artists that are of value to this community that are underemployed in this moment, okay? And it's part of the earned income, March and March earned income disappeared just like all the small businesses earned income. So that made sense to them. And then I think the other part that made sense to them was that using sort of the business modeling techniques that they are familiar with and putting out a case that for a relatively small investment, meaning that if you're in, trying to sell hunger, housing, healthcare, that's billions of dollars in our sector, it's a relatively small $15 million could be leveraged dramatically by this sort of network of projects that could essentially employ our artist community. And to my surprise, and I had five minutes to make this pitch, I was invited and then I had five minutes to make the pitch and the 15 person high tech group unanimously embraced the idea. And part of it was, is that logically it made sense to them. And then it also felt feasible and relevant in this time of need to do real projects in our community of value, placemaking, arts education, storytelling and health messaging. So that's one example of seizing the moment given the audience to make a case. Yeah, that's great, thank you. So I definitely heard you sort of bridging different arguments and sort of merging them into one cohesive sort of case that was fine tuned to that particular moment and that opportunity. Yeah, and if I could add, and it kind of goes with my earlier comment, the thing that we, we often judge people's intentions and sometimes they're wrong, our judgments are wrong. And I went into this conversation somewhat skeptical. I came out actually hopeful. And part of it is, I go back to this, we've got to have the logic, the reason, the data, the business case, the business plan, all of that in Silicon Valley. And by the way, those of you who are in other regions of the world, I'm not pretending you're like us. Nor in some case would you want to be. But the other thing we have to remember is, these people are parents, they want their children to be exposed to culture. They have their own creative expression that is soulful. So they're human beings. So that's where I'm saying, don't stop making the argument with logic and reason and all of that. You've got to sprinkle in the heart, the soul. And it's the truth, beauty and justice is also important to every human being. Thanks for reminding us of that, Connie. And I do, I appreciate the acknowledgement that Silicon Valley is a unique environment. And at the same time, I think a lot of what you are sharing with us today are sort of principles and conditions we've observed in other communities as well. And I think folks tuning in from all over will be able to relate to various pieces of that. I want to just come back to something that you mentioned with that last example of the group of leaders that are working toward recovery for COVID-19.  Probably most of the folks are all of the folks tuning in are aware of how hard hit arts and cultural sector has been with the pandemic. And at the same time, I think we've been seeing how artists have also been really central to our communities coping with the pandemic. It's that some of the truth and beauty that I think people are really connecting around. And then they've also been really stepping forward among the first, I think to, as we've seen in many communities, figuring out how to put their skills and their special kind of expertise to use to contribute to community resilience and recovery. And I wonder if you could just talk a little bit more about also what that looks like in this moment. San Jose is one of the communities in which the public funding for the arts has taken a hit due to the city governments shifting of funding to things that also relate to COVID-19 recovery. And some cities, Philadelphia is just one example where an arts and culture office of the city was in fact eliminated. So a lot of communities are struggling with some of these infrastructural and financial shortfalls. What are some of the things that you are seeing happening with folks coming together, whether it's an arts or the other sectors that you're working with to address this shortfall? And what do you see as being the risks of maybe not, if we don't do that, whether it's near-term repercussions or longer-term repercussions? Jose, I think that there's two parts to that question that you just posed. And the first is about, how are the artists showing up as second responders in this time of need? And what we're finding is incredible creativity and resiliency among the artist's community. I'm not saying they're not suffering just like the small business community and having lost their income, but they're figuring out a way. And to some degree, Priya, the fact that our ecosystem has never had what I would call the legacy organizations, the large, well-funded, most often Eurocentric, we don't have the overhead that a lot of other regions have, if that makes sense. So there's some resilience built in. Back to the city and the local government. The primary source of funding that the city of San Jose has for the arts is the transient occupancy tax, the hotel tax. That's there around the whole, people use that across the nation. So people are pretty familiar, especially in the arts. So as you can imagine, that's been hit incredibly hard, okay? So I think the example I would want to give you is that how have we coped? I think the first thing is, is that the leaders of the arts have come together initially to just sort of support each other. I mean, this is really hard times. So it was initially sort of the comfort of having a group come together and there's a group of us that are part of the American Leadership Forum, which is a multi-sector network, but the segment that our arts leaders started meeting every Monday morning. And the reason I'm bringing that up is that that group had conversations with elected, invited electeds in. We had strategies of how we would make our case and not go to the city as the, whoa, are we whining arts community, but rather how can we be of service in this time of need? How can you leverage us so that we can not only make it through this pandemic and this crisis we're in, but that we're actually there on the other side, okay? So we started having these conversations, very human, very, very thoughtful, and numbers matter. And so by the end of this, we had pitched a whole series of recommendations and the one that stuck and actually has played out is that as a result of that, the CARES money that came from the feds, they backfilled our TOT with $2 million. And I'm not saying it was just one voice, one leader or one conversation, but to me it was a proof point that when the arts organize for the benefit of the community and have a voice, it matters. Thank you, that's helpful. And we have a question from Mitzi that I think relates to what you were just mentioning, is could you talk about placemaking and how the arts can contribute to that goal? And I'm going to just broaden it a little bit as well. I think if you could also share some of these ways that either you've already seen the arts contributing to resilience and recovery in your area, in your geography or some of those things that you all brought to the city to say here are ways we can contribute. So first of all, I kind of want to say out loud that San Jose grew up over a course of a few decades because of Silicon Valley, grew up fast. And so it doesn't have the history that a lot of American cities of our size would have. And to that point, we're an unfinished city. So the arts have played a very important role in giving the texture and the activation to public spaces as the city grows into its potential. And in fact, we've been there when nobody else has been there. So, and you have a group of leaders who truly care about this community in a very authentic way. So there has been an impact. I think right now, where the leaders of the arts community are engaging in conversations with the city and in fact are playing leadership roles about reopening, activation, activation in physical public spaces are what placemaking's about. So to create that texture and those things that bring people not only into the space but in nurture their experiences, if you will. So those specific examples, I think are current and but they're also a decades of coming if that makes some sense. I don't know, go back to the question. I don't know if I really hit it completely. Well, the question is about how artists can contribute to the goal of placemaking. And I do think you hit that. And then my sort of part two of it was about what you're seeing happening in this moment or some of those recommendations that your group made to the city about. Yeah, and so, and I think I'll give one more example which isn't necessarily pandemic driven but it kind of goes back to that being at the table. You first have to get invited and then you have to show up and you have to have a broader view of the world in my view and not just art centric. That gives you credibility if that makes sense. So one example where we weren't invited is the Google development. Probably folks on the line have heard about this. It's national news, huge major development being planned for downtown San Jose. We were not on the community advisory group. We weren't invited. And they had many, many, many, many meetings. And to be honest, I wasn't paying enough attention to this issue. And so it wasn't like I made it an issue but rather we were working on developing the relationship directly with Google, developing a relationship, understanding what their needs were, what we had to offer. And I think, I mean, the jury's out but we've organized thoughtful community conversations with arts leaders and Google. And as a result, we're seeing, we have seen some progress in terms of how our input has impacted their development. And that didn't come by being in your face. It came from listening, showing up with the intentions to do both of us on both sides to do something better for our community. I think there's great power in that and there's nobody better to be in those conversations than the arts. Thanks, Connie. I think something that you brought up is really kind of resonating with me in terms of other conversations that we've been having on this show, on other Night Foundation shows and other program areas as well. Which I think is especially, I think comes up even more with this, I think heightened attention to equity in our communities. And so, and that is the question of the table. So you mentioned and understanding this is the way that this works can be different from one community to the next. But there is that question of like, who's inviting to the table, getting invited, how do you get invited all of that? But what I heard in what you just said is in a case where you weren't invited to a table, you built a relationship, you developed a relationship and then sort of built your own table or created a table where then you were convening people. And I think that's something that is also important for folks to think about in terms of who's building the table, who's doing the inviting and how that can happen in an equitable way. And I wonder if you could talk a little bit too about how that's manifested or maybe the importance of that at least in your area. I just wanna acknowledge too that San Jose is one of the largest cities in the country. It's also one of the most diverse communities, San Jose and Silicon Valley. And so, and you're serving a wide range of organizations and artists in that community. Can you talk a little bit about that idea of the table and equity? Yeah, so I'm gonna go back to a couple of things that I touched on but integrate this issue into it. And part of it is the message that this is a moment for the arts to really amplify, to elevate and amplify our voices relative to the issue of racial equity and inclusion. So I think there's an opportunity for us to leverage this moment across our country. And where it showed up is the, we would never have had the conversations we had at the Silicon Valley Recovery Roundtable but through the social unrest that our country's experiencing. So it kind of opened the door for that. And I think an answer to your question, I don't think we should be timid about setting the table, inviting the others to our table. And it works best if you actually have relationships to begin with that are outside of the arts. So that authenticity and relationship over time. So it's not just that we're leveraging this moment for our own interests. It's like we already have relationships with this community. This now is an opening to talk about things that may not have been able to talk about before. And we are the best medium in which to have those conversations. I experienced it firsthand on the Silicon Valley Recovery Roundtable. And I'm actually a big fan of enlightened self-interest with an emphasis on the enlightened part because Silicon Valley companies have the most diverse workforce in the, one of the most diverse workforces in the world. So they have, and the workforce is their greatest asset right in this knowledge, brainy economy that we're in. So it's in their best interests to pay attention to this. And so when the arts can, when they can start seeing how the arts can play a role in it, our credibility, our value goes up. And so I think that's the moment we're in. So I think two parts to the issue of being at the table, you have to have relationships and you have to give outside of your little bubble of the arts to actually sometimes be invited and be noticed. And the other side of it is, is that you don't be timid about setting your own table. Thanks. I wanna bring in another couple of questions from viewers before we wrap up. So one actually relates to that. And I feel like you've touched on this. So let me know if there's not anything additional you would say, but one of the questions is beyond the pandemic, how can we get arts advocacy into the mainstream political and or public service conversation? Yeah, I think, I mean, part of it is, is leveraging the moment we're in and then taking those relationships and the conversations where the arts are in service to the community and continuing them. So, don't stop after a crisis is essentially build on it. And so I think that's part of the answer. And it's, as leaders of the arts, it's kind of on us to make certain that we don't let go. And the other thing is, is to the degree that we are during this time, there are proof points that may not have been obvious to our communities before. Then we actually, that gives us strength and credibility as we move forward. So part of it is, is don't give up the fight, accelerate it. Thank you. And then another question, this is sort of a more specific question that has to do with recovery, but also with community resilience and sustainability. Wendy asks, would if corporations provide one-time grants to artists for short-term project creation, will that do anything to build community resilience, recovery and sustainability? Yeah, I don't think, you know, there's an intervention and then there's this long-term strategy of building resiliency. And so I'm not pretending that some of what our work that I just shared with you isn't one-time. But if you take that one-time and then leverage it in relationships that didn't exist before, I think you are building towards a longer-term resiliency. And by the way, the intention of our recommendation, we call it the Silicon Valley Creative Core, was a public-private partnership, whereby the private sector leveraged the public sector's investment, some of which is already there, right? But hasn't been, hasn't been, you know, or we haven't challenged the sector or been successful at them investing. So that concept, in my view, is not just an intervention strategy, it's a longer-term strategy. Once again, it takes a lot of work to not, you've got to build the bridge and then you've got to stay on the bridge. Yeah, that's great. And I think it leads well to one closing question from one of our viewers from Heather. With extreme reductions in city budgets, other than funding, what are other ways you recommend to cities to help sustain the arts community? Okay, well, that's a great question. And everybody needs money, we know that. But I think what we're learning in this time of crisis is that we also need each other. So we're gathering, we're having the almost these small group gatherings with different segments of our arts community. And part of it is, is to learn from each other and share what works and doesn't work. But it's also just moral support during this time. So don't underestimate the importance of that. We've also, and just like everybody else, we, you know, all of our capacity building programs, we have, you know, we're now providing them online. And the virtual experience is now focused on the issues of dealing with the recovery. So there's content that we can provide our community. And we've certainly gotten good reviews on some of the programs that we've, you know, we pivoted to. So there's that piece, you know, the whole advocacy. We've probably done more advocacy for the arts in the last, you know, 10 months than we've done in the last 10 years. And so that is important in the moment, but it's also important to leverage going forward. So those are some of the sort of non-cash things. And then I think this whole issue of connecting the arts leadership to civic leadership that's beyond the arts to use this as a, as a moment in time where we are really relationship building a cross sector. So whatever we can do to facilitate that, I think, and whatever a city can do to facilitate that would be helpful. Thanks, Connie. Great, great advice. Thank you so much. We are, we're out of time. So I want to thank you again so much, Connie, for being with us and sharing these insights from your work. I want to just mention a report that I believe came out from the, the working group that you mentioned, Connie. Let me know if I, if I got that wrong, but it's called building a better normal. And you can find that online and we'll put the link in the chat. And also wanted to let you know about Content Magazine, which is an arts-focused publication. Connie, do you want to say a quick word about Content Magazine? Yeah, you know, I mentioned those three bubbles of capacity building, visibility and voice, raising the voices. This is Content Magazine is our version amplifying the voices of our local artist community in a beautiful publication and all of the social media and event programs that go along with it. So we publish quarterly now and it has created a network of creatives who feel supported and connected to one another. So yes, thank you for mentioning it, Content Magazine. Daniel Garcia is the creative genius behind it and we are the publisher. That's great. And I can vouch that when I'm in San Jose, I see it everywhere and folks outside the arts mention Content Magazine and often have a copy nearby. So that's a great example. So again, thank you, Connie. Thank you everyone for tuning in. We hope you found some of these ideas and tips to be helpful. Next week, please join us on Friday, September 11th when my colleague, Chris Barr will be joined by Catherine Yu, executive editor of NoPresenium to discuss from live to live streamed about how performing arts organizations are adapting during the pandemic and what they can learn from early experimentation in this realm and what opportunities exist to create rewarding experiences for attendees and creators alike. And for those of our viewers who are in Miami, just wanna give a quick reminder that the Night New Work Miami open call for new work in the performing arts just such as the kinds of projects that Chris and Catherine will be talking about, that open call closes on Tuesday, September 8th, Tuesday, September 8th at 11.59 p.m. You can find information about that in the chat. The same, same Chris Barr, my colleague composed our intro music and our exit music is by Akron Jazz artist, Theron Brown. Thank you to all of our Night Foundation colleagues who work hard behind the scenes to make this show happen every week. And until next time, we wish you good health, safety and joy in art. Thanks and take care.


bill is scrutinised, that this legislation is in place to protect the devolved settlement of this Parliament. The last of the open debate contributions is three minutes from Ross Greer. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I only have a few minutes, so apologies if this is a bit rushed. It is obviously vital that we get the continuity bill right. The task at hand is unprecedented, both in terms of the scale of changes to retained EU law to make it workable and the powers being granted to ministers to make those changes. We must get the balance right to provide proper democratic oversight while allowing ministers to make the changes necessary and in a timely manner. I sincerely hope that the Government is open to the changes that I am proposing and those of all other parties. I can see amendments from all other opposition parties that the Greens are certainly interested in hearing more from and some that we will absolutely support. I'm afraid that I've just not got enough time, but I will engage Mr Finlay on this this evening. We've seen the UK Government ignore the opposition at Westminster, the devolved Governments, Parliament and Assemblies. This has created an entirely avoidable mess. We can do better, but we obviously have little time to do so. The minister made very welcome comments on the issue of appropriate parliamentary oversight and scrutiny when I raised concerns with the UK bill in September of last year. He made a commitment that the Scottish Government has, and I will quote, no desire to exercise powers without proper scrutiny and that it will work right across the chamber and with the committees to make sure that there is proper scrutiny. I have tabled several amendments to improve parliamentary oversight, two of which are particularly important. The first is to section 14 of the bill. Those are its primary scrutiny mechanisms. The bill currently sets out a list of what changes should be made by affirmative procedures and by the superaffirmative procedure. Everything else is left to the negative procedure. That current approach is potentially dangerous. It's extremely difficult to predict what changes will be needed, so a definitive list for the affirmative procedures and leaving everything else to the negative risk some major changes being made without proper scrutiny. Equally, making everything subject to the affirmative risk overwhelming the Parliament and delaying necessary and small-scale changes. My amendment would address that. It takes inspiration from an amendment at Westminster, which creates a sifting committee. That was introduced by the Conservative Chair of the Procedures Committee in the comments. The amendment would give the Parliament's committees here the power to decide upon appropriate scrutiny mechanisms, whether it is negative affirmative or superaffirmative. The current list in the bill would continue to act as a guide, but the decision on scrutiny would ultimately lie with Parliament. The second amendment is to section 31 on the urgency provisions. Again, I recognise the need to make an urgent change immediately should the situation arise, but that is a power that is open to abuse, permitting ministers to simply decide that a matter is urgent and make a change before Parliament has the chance to even look at it. My amendment would provide Parliament with the power to suspend the urgency provisions if it believes that they have been misused—an emergency break. Parliament would also have the power to reinstate them, if it believed that the problem of misuse has been resolved. Those two changes would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the bill and ensure that it is the majority in this Parliament, not a minority Government that has control. I should be clear that those amendments are not made in the ardent belief that the current Scottish Government would otherwise abuse its powers, but as a Parliament we would be failing our own institution, as well as those that it represents, if we did not do all that we could to ensure that the primacy of the selected body of the majority is established. We now move to the closing speeches. I am a bit disappointing that not everyone who took part is in the chamber. We will go to James Kelly in five minutes. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that in some cases it has been a challenging debate this afternoon for members. Obviously, in relation to stage 2, we have 231 amendments that the Finance and Constitution Committee will be considering later on this evening and potentially into tomorrow morning. It has been a challenge for members to pull out what are the main themes from those amendments. I think that that emphasises some of the concerns that have been raised about the process from Tavi Scott, John Lamont in the beginning and a point of order and also from Graham Simpson. I note an acceptable fact that the Parliament accepted that this is emergency legislation, but the reality is that we are proceeding through this at breakneck speed. A lot of it is complex. It takes some time to grasp the detail of some of those issues and it is going to be a real challenge for the Finance and Constitution Committee tonight to deal with those issues. I think that there is an element of frustration from MSPs across the chamber that we are not able to properly do such important legislation justice. I think that the other thing that has come out in the debate, as Neil Findlay highlighted, is to an extent how we have been used as part of the negotiating game that has gone on between the Scottish Governments and the UK Governments. You saw that in the interchange that took place between Adam Tomkins, Mr Swinney and Mike Russell. At one point, Mr Swinney and Mr Russell were both trying to intervene in Adam Tomkins. The important point of debate was the motion that the amendment had been submitted to the House of Lords. That is clearly an important area in terms of negotiations. I understand that, but it shows you how Parliament is sitting in the middle of that game. The most important event is probably going to be yesterday. John Swinney? Mr Kelly has just described the exchanges between Mr Tomkins and Mr Russell as a game. It is not a game because it is about what is the ability of this Parliament to exercise powers when it was established and envisaged that we would be able to exercise. The crucial question is whether or not the agreement of this Parliament or this Government will be sought in any of the frameworks that are envisaged in the United Kingdom arrangements, over which we have no issue about frameworks. However, whether our agreement is sought is a fundamental issue that I think anyone who respects devolution would have mine to accept. I wonder whether Mr Kelly agrees with that position. James Kelly? The key point, Mr Swinney, is how we resolve the issue. Even if Parliament proceeds and passes the legislation, which is a danger that could end up in the courts, the key point is how to resolve it and how to resolve it around the negotiating table. What I was going on to say was that the most important event of the week is probably tomorrow's meeting where the First Minister is attending. I understand that there is going to be a conversation with the Prime Minister. I think that we would all hope that there is some progress there so that we can get a resolution, because I think that the process that we are going through in terms of this legislation, although it is necessary to protect the devolution settlement, I do not think that it has been Parliament's finest hour. I think that there have been some important contributions made in relation to amendments. Claudia Beamish spoke very passionately about the important to protect the current elements of EU law in relation to the environment. She was right to highlight the fact that we did not want to see a race to the bottom. I think that there are real concerns about the provisions of section 13. I feel that the Government has gone too far in trying to establish additional powers for ministers. Neil Bibby and Daniel Johnson highlighted those very well. I thought that Mark Ruskell made an excellent speech in supporting the principle of animal sentience. I know that Colin Smyth has amendments in that area. I will be intrigued later on to see the Government's defence for the abandoning of the Frankivitch principle. I know that that is something that Tavish Scott has amendment 7 on later. It is an important principle of EU law that allows compensation for workers in relation to insolvencies. I wonder why the Scottish Government has sought to take that out. In relation to exit day, we will look at Mr Scott's amendment. That would seem to the pinpoint. We will explore it later, Mr Ruskell. In terms of exit day, I welcome the fact that there is going to be some clarity around that, because it is important for whatever your view on the arguments that we have clear when exit day is. It is absolutely essential that we try to get a resolution to that process going forward. I hope that there can continue to be constructive discussions between the Scottish and UK Governments. If we end up in a situation in which the legislation precedes in the past, there is a danger that it could end up in the courts and be challenged, and that is not something that any of the parliamentarians would want. We have had some powerful speeches in this debate across the chamber, but for a stage 2 debate, disappointingly few members referred to amendments that were proposed or tried to argue for them. What I would like to do is, if I have time, to make reference to a number of the key amendments that are before us this evening. Before I do that, I want to set this all briefly in context. As we heard from Adam Tomkins and other Conservative speakers during this debate, our view is that this bill is unnecessary, poorly drafted and probably illegal. It is simply an exercise in grandstanding by the Scottish National Party Government, and we will do nothing to improve the legal framework in Scotland as we prepare for Brexit. That is not just the view of the Scottish Conservatives. Giving evidence to this Parliament's Finance and Constitution Committee last week, Professor Alan Page of Dundee University said, I have considerable doubts over whether the bill, as introduced, does constitute an effective solution to the challenge that the Scottish Parliament will face. We also heard evidence from the Law Society of Scotland on the bill, indicating that there are a huge number of issues with the original draft that required to be addressed before it will make good law. We heard SNP speaker after speaker in this debate saying that the devolution settlement must be respected. I think that there is a rich irony in those demands when you look at the way that the SNP Government is approaching this legislation. Firstly, we know that the Presiding Officer of this Parliament has ruled that this bill is beyond the Scottish Parliament's powers and that it is not competent for this Parliament to pass it, and yet that opinion has been ignored by the Scottish Government, the same party who continually demands that others respect the devolution settlement. Secondly, this is a bill being rushed through Parliament as emergency legislation. Despite the fact that there is no emergency, there is no requirement to have this bill on the statute boot within a matter of weeks when we are not due to leave the EU for another year. Indeed, by rushing through this bill, while the EU withdrawal bill is still subject to change at Westminster, we may find that the provisions passed in haste by this Parliament in this bill end up being incompatible with what is in the EU withdrawal bill, which may be subsequently changed, meaning that it has to come back to this Parliament for future amendment. We heard a number of points from Johann Lamont, Tavish Scott, Jamie Greene and others about the time provided for parliamentary scrutiny. There are some 231 amendments lodged to this bill that all have to be considered in a very short space of time by members of the Finance and Constitution Committee. Notwithstanding the greatest respect that I have for all my colleagues on that committee, that is no way to be treating a serious piece of legislation. Those of us who are used to stage 2 and stage 3 debates in this chamber will know that, when amendments are published, very often external bodies will engage with us, constituents will write to us and make a case to argue for or against particular amendments. The opportunity for that to be done in this vitally important piece of legislation has been lost because of the very short timescale of what it is being forced through. Whatever reservations the Scottish Conservatives may have about this bill, and there are many, we are not in the business of seeing this Parliament pass bad laws. That is why we have put down 147 amendments to this bill. I say to Mr Finlay in response to his tantrum earlier on in the debate. That is not about playing games, Mr Finlay. We are in the serious business in this Parliament of passing laws. That is why we are sent here by our constituents, and that is what we are paid to do. If Mr Finlay does not want to be in the business of passing laws, perhaps he needs to reconsider his career choices. Of course, Mr Finlay is Labour's Brexit spokesman. He is supposed to be providing front bench opposition from that position. What have Labour done on this bill under his guidance? They voted with the SNP for this to be emergency legislation. They voted for a timetabling motion to curtail debate, and they voted for this bill at stage 1. If that is providing opposition, Mr Finlay, I am a Dutchman. I will give way. Neil Findlay. Can I ask the Dutchman then? If his party had delivered on the promises that they gave to the UK Parliament and to this Parliament, we would not be in this position in the first place. It is your fault that we are in this position, Mr Fraser. Mr Finlay well knows that there has been an amendment lodged to the EU withdrawal bill at Westminster, but Mr Finlay's view of opposition is to keep supporting everything that the SNP front bench does, that it needs some lessons in how to deliver opposition. Briefly, I want to touch just on a number of amendments. Amendment 59, in my name, seeks to put a declaration on the face of the bill that any decisions made by the Supreme Court that all or any provisions of this act are out with the legislative competence of this Parliament must be complied with. I think that that is important, given the strong possibility of the Supreme Court ruling on the validity of this act. I have a number of amendments down, as others such as Tavish Scott and James Kenley do, to section 13, which contains extensive powers to Scottish ministers to continue to make regulations under the bill for a period of up to 15 years after the date of exiting the EU. That cannot be acceptable, and I look forward to hearing in the debate later how that can be reduced. In closing, I just want to make one more point, which I think is important. It was made in this debate by both Graham Simpson and Dean Lockhart, because, in relation to all those powers in question, all the powers in dispute between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, the SNP actually wants to see every last one of those powers retained in Brussels and not devolved at all. Indeed, if the SNP had their way, we would be re-entring the EU, and every single one of those powers that they are complaining about would be returned in their entirety to the EU and not exercised any closer to home. It is a UK Conservative Government delivering a powers bonanza to this Parliament under devolution. Powers that every single SNP member of this Parliament, with the honourable exception of Alec Neill, wants to return to Brussels at the first opportunity, and in so doing they are airbrushing from history the 38 per cent of the population who voted for Brexit. Over 1 million Scots, more than a third of SNP voters, are saying to them that they will send those powers back to Brussels. That is what the SNP would do. The whole bill is at best a waste of parliamentary time. It should be rejected by the Parliament, but, in the meantime, we will do what we can to try to improve it. Michael Russell, would you take us up to 5 o'clock, please? With pleasure, Presiding Officer. Can I start where I finished off last week in the stage 1 debate just by cautioning the chamber, particularly in the light of what we have just heard, to try to use language in a way that helps this debate and not hinders it? You cannot use the words forced through to describe a parliamentary process that has been taken place by debate with majorities on each occasion. I know that that is not a popular thing for the Conservatives, but that is true. Let me also welcome just one or two of the things that have been said by a number of people and indicate what I indicated at the beginning of this debate. We are listening very carefully to concerns that exist, for example, as Ross Greer has given on the sifting part. I entirely agree with Ross Greer that this is a question of balancing the requirements of this bill, which we did not wish to be involved in this Brexit process, with the maximum amount of parliamentary scrutiny. That is how I am going to approach all the amendments on this matter this evening, and I hope that we can have that debate and either resolve it this evening or create the circumstances in which we will resolve it when we come to stage 3. That is what we will endeavour to do. I say that that is how I am going into this evening, and that is how I am going into this evening, no matter the provocations. From what he says, I presume that he is moving towards setting up that sifting committee. I wonder if, like me, you would welcome Mr Greer's bouncing enthusiasm to sit in that sifting committee, should it be set up? Michael Russell? I am always welcome bouncing enthusiasm wherever I say it. I used to have bouncing enthusiasm myself, it seems a long time ago. That is what I used to have. There are ways to take this away. Mr Finlay does not believe me, but he has not known me as long as some other people in this chamber. The reality is that there may be other ways to do this, so there may be ways to expedite it more closely, but I am in agreement that we should endeavour to have that maximum scrutiny and let us try to find a way to do so. I would also like to recall something that Sandra White said in this debate, which is that there are 381 days until exit day. Even if there is a transition period, there is only likely to be less than two years beyond that, so there will be an urgency in getting those issues resolved. We have to balance that urgency with the issues of scrutiny, and we will endeavour to do so. I am sure that the whole chamber will endeavour to do so. That 381 days should concentrate our minds in the chaos and confusion of Brexit, which is being driven forward by the Conservatives.  We know from the chancellor's statement this afternoon that growth is collapsing. We know from the figures that the UK Government has produced that economic decline beckons us. In fact, the Tories know that to be true. There are very few original Brexiteers in those benches. We heard from Mr Simpson, who was one of them, whose views have not changed, but there are others who have been dragged in this position. I would ask them to pause for a second and consider what is in the interests of Scotland, not what is in the interests of the Conservative Party, because Scotland's democratic will was shown in the referendum and continues to be shown. Scotland does not want to be dragged out of Europe against this will. Therefore, the position that we have seen the Conservatives in this afternoon of endeavouring to ensure that the Tory interests in this come before Scotland's interests, we should question it. We should question it this evening when we consider each of the amendments and we should go on questioning it. At the heart of that is an issue that Mr Tomkins—no, I am sorry, I really have to make progress here—I shall mention the other in a moment, Mr Greene, do not worry. I have not forgotten your contribution. I wish I could. Mr Tomkins made a very key point. He talked about agreed not imposed, and why he was subject to the spectacle of Mr Swinney and I showing bouncing enthusiasm for intervening on him. It is a key issue. If his view had been taken on board by the UK Government, there would be no problem. We would not be having this, but it has not been taken on board. It was not taken on board in the original drafting of the bill, and it has not been taken on board in the revised or replaced clause. That is the issue—agreed not imposed. Mr Tomkins said it himself—agreed not imposed. Until the UK Government gets to that position, there can be no agreement. Mr Finlay chided me about getting round the table and getting an agreement. Round that table is not just the Scottish Government, the UK Government but the Welsh Government as well. I know his colleague, Professor Drakeford, whom I worked very closely with in the last year, and I will go round that table at any time with any request that comes in the UK Government in order to resolve that. We have been doing that, but we have been, as one on the issue, agreed not imposed. That is where we remain, with the unity of all the parties in this chamber and the unity of all the parties in the Welsh Parliament until we get to the stage of no return, where there had to be some movement on that. Otherwise, we would simply have been steamrolled, but we are still in the position—we are absolutely still in the position—that we could move to agreement. That bill has that within it. It has the capability within it, even if it has passed not to be implemented if we get to that stage. Now, there is one or two issues of detail that I just want to address. One of them comes from Professor Tomkins, who asserted absolutely ex-cathedra that section 33 of the continuity bill amending section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998 is, and I quote him, manifestly outwith competence. Well, no, it isn't. Section 1b of schedule 4 of the Scotland Act 1998 expressly allows spent provisions to be amended once Brexit happens. The reference to EU law is spent. Secondly, Alison Harris talked about one bill. That's what she wanted to see. Well, that's what we've been seeking. That's what we've been negotiating about. That's what we've sought. That's what we want—one bill. But it is one bill, agreed, not imposed. We'd be happy to have one bill if it was agreed, not imposed, to quote Professor Tomkins. Now to Jamie Greene. It's almost impossible to keep up with the misrepresentations of the legislation, but let me just deal with two of them. The bill has been hastily drafted. The bill is closely based on the UK bill. That UK bill has had numerous improvements because of the scrutiny of the bill in this place. We have responded to the scrutiny of the UK bill, and many of the provisions are identical. If you would wish to criticise the drafting, start with the UK. The second point is about parliamentary consent. All the powers under the bill require parliamentary scrutiny in the normal way. All require parliamentary approval. Those two points are simply wrong. They are not for interpretation. They are simply wrong. In addition, you then have to look at the points that Graham Simpson and Dean Lockhart made. None of the existing powers will be affected. We want, SNP wants, apparently, all powers to be held in Brussels. Neither is true. Neither is true. Mr Simpson was a Brexiteer, and I know that the Brexit campaign was full of things that have turned out not to be true, but those two remain untrue. The list is clear. Many key powers will be affected. For example, pillars 1 and 2 of cap. If Mr Simpson does not know that there are changes in the administration of common agricultural policy in Scotland, then he should know that. Similarly, we want all the powers to be held by Brussels. No, we don't. We want all the powers to be held by the Scottish people. That is what everybody in this chamber should want. That is what we are here for—popular sovereignty, not parliamentary sovereignty. I am not giving way. I have very few minutes left and a number of Tories still to contradict. Let me go on to Liam Kerr's contribution. I am sorry that he spent so much time in the Starbank hidden that his focus began to wobble a little because, quite clearly, he was not looking at the same bill as the one that is in front of me. In actual fact, the bill, as I have said, closely matches and, in places, exactly mirrors the withdrawal bill. If he is a difficulty with draftsmen, if he is a difficulty with defining things, then please refer it to them. However, some of the things, the two particular things that he raised, are also untrue. The word prospective is accurate. Prospective means that it has not happened yet, and Brexit has not happened yet. I defend the word prospective. The second one, in terms of definitions, is that he did not like the inability to define the word past. I refer him to section 27.2. That actually defines it. It is in the section, just to be helpful, called interpretation, which would know—I am sorry—that he can go back and tell the regulars of the Starbank hidden about this, but, as far as I am concerned, he has got it completely wrong. There is a tendency, of course, to try and talk down any legislation from this Government because it has been done in Scotland and to talk up legislation at Westminster. However, if he has a problem with this bill, then he should raise it with the Westminster draftsman. Finally, what we now see is that when we get to the detail of the fact, when we show that the assertions coming from the Tory benches are actually wrong, not interpretations, not just views but wrong, we hear hollow laughter. That is hollow laughter. The reality is that we have spent a lot of time this afternoon hearing things about this bill from the Tory benches that simply are not true. Now, there will be and are very strong attempts to make this bill better, coming from the Labour Party, coming from the Greens, coming from the Liberal Democrats and, just occasionally, coming from the Conservatives. I think that that is probably accidental, but there are little bits here and there that are going to improve this bill. At stages this evening, I will surprise one or two members. Their lucky evening will have come where I have said, you know, I think that that is a good idea and I think that the Scottish Government will support that. However, what we will not support is a situation in which the interests of Scotland and the legislation in Scotland are subordinated to the interests of the Tory party and keeping a Tory Government at Westminster. That will underwrite our laws not now, not ever. Now, finally, let me comment on the contribution from Richard Lockhead, which I thought was very significant this afternoon. Richard Lockhead has enormous experience, particularly in the key areas under examination this bill. He has, I think, been the longest-serving cabinet secretary in a single post since devolution alongside Mr Swinney. I think that the nine-year period in office was highly significant and I greatly enjoyed working with him, particularly with his environment minister. His analysis of reasons for the UK power grab was spot-on, except that it was too generous. It missed out a single item. What he said was, first of all, that he found many people he had worked with in Westminster to be hostile to devolution. Yes, they are. Secondly, he found many of them to be scared of any possible advantage that Scotland might have. Yes, they are. However, what has really shocked me over the past 18 months is the lack of knowledge of devolution, and the reality of the situation is that they simply do not know how it works. We will continue to endeavour to educate them on that matter. We will continue to work with them when we seek an agreement. However, I go back to the very beginning of this, Presiding Officer. We will do so on the basis of agreed not imposed. If Mr Tomkins meant that in what he said earlier, he will find people on the benches that he can work with, if he did not, there will be no agreement. Thank you very much. That concludes our pre-stage 2 debate on the UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland bill. Because we have moved members' business to accommodate, I should say, the finance committee, which will be meeting in this chamber at 5.45 to go through the stage 2 amendments. That concludes today's business, and I close this meeting.


Into the studio. We're back. Let's do this. Alright everyone, the 2019 New York City Marathon is officially in the books and yes, this book by Liz Robin, the title does not lie. A race like no other. It truly was a race like no other. I can't even, so I did not sleep on the plane right here.  I probably should have slept the four-hour plane ride back to Denver, but instead I couldn't sleep. I tried because I was thinking and processing what I experienced yesterday in the five boroughs of New York. And on that note, New York is unlike any other race that I've done. One of the very practical reasons why. And so what I'm about to share and you know how I can talk for a long time here in the studio, so I'm gonna try and I have a lot of thoughts to share, but I'm gonna try and keep it concise. But one of the reasons New York is, so I want to give you a lot of insights. But one of the reasons New York is unique is because it's point to point. And so you get to see more neighborhoods, all five boroughs, more culture along the 26.2 miles, more food, like smelling the food in the neighborhood that's being cooked on the sidewalks. You're gonna hear the languages being spoken. You're gonna hear the different instruments being played. You're gonna hear the silence of the Orthodox Jewish Jewish neighborhood. You get to experience the five bridges. So it really really, not just from a, it's hard, you got it, you know it's a hilly marathon course. There's a, yeah, not from the running perspective, just the fact that you go through the five boroughs. So just want to point that out at the beginning. Unbelievable. It really was unique. And I hope to be back just putting that out there right now. I hope to be back someday. Okay, diving in. I'm gonna go from start to finish. Let's break this down. Again, trying to bring you some insights into what I experienced and what I hope you, we're able to experience yesterday in the vlog when I basically collected. And again, a shout out to I think 50 people around there emailed me clips from their phones, from their go-pros, of filming along the way. That vlog does not happen without Demor Global running, uniting on the streets of New York. So thank you for taking the time, putting in the energy to get out on the streets, to keep your eyes up. Keep your eyes up to look for me. Because you know, I guess you didn't know exactly when I was gonna get to those points. So it was a big deal to receive. I don't know what the exact number was, but it was around 50 different video clips from different people. So thank you. And I'm gonna use them again in this vlog right now. So let's dive in first to the Blue Corral, very organized at the base of the Verrazano Bridge. I found my corral very easily. The UPS truck, thank you UPS for the backdrop. That was perfect. And the weather was solid yesterday, but a little breezy. Okay, going through Brooklyn especially. Just a little breezy. I'll get more into that in a minute. And then after the corral, after you're collected there, after you've donated the clothes to the Goodwill bins, unbelievable. I'm talking, I think, well, yeah, I'm gonna say it. Millions and millions of dollars of pretty nice running gear just being tossed in these bins because you're not gonna run with it for 26 miles. So what's cool is that they take all that clothing that's tossed on the ground or tossed in these bins.  Maybe they're getting into running somewhere in the greater New York City area. So I think that's amazing.  You're going through the crowd. You know, the DJ kicks it up and it gets loud. So here's what's crazy. And this is what a lot of people are confused about the start from yesterday. You saw the footage. You got a little crazy. You got a little crazy on the Verrazano Bridge. So I get there and I'm about five or six people back in my corral, meaning I'm not right at the front, but I'm about five or six people back.  All of a sudden, these people start streaming in from the side and I see them coming in and I'm like, are they running? And who are they? And are they gonna be running 520 a mile? And so I don't... Okay. So here's the deal. People are asking in the comments from yesterday, Seth, why were you not in the front? Why were you tripping over people at the beginning?  Well, I did not... When I received my registration, I submitted my projected finish time, but I submitted that before Amsterdam. I did not have a road marathon time to submit. So I could not gain entry into the sub-elite category. Who knows? Maybe 223 from Amsterdam would have... No, it would not have gotten me into the elite. So there's them... There's the elite and then there's the sub-elite category and then there's the blue corral and that's where I was. But then five minutes to go, these people stream into the side and I don't know if they... I don't know if they... I don't know who they were, but there was quite a few of them. If it was connected to Footlocker, if it was connected to fundraising and charities, it got ugly. It got ugly. I don't know what else to say.  And honestly, it almost got dangerous because you crossed the starting mat. It took me maybe like seven seconds to get to the starting mat before my time officially started and I took off, you know, whatever, 520 mile and I'm elbowing and I'm juke-ing and ducking and diving and so... Anyway, that's what happened at the start and we survived. But then we passed this gentleman, right? What did I type in yesterday's vlog? No excuses, work hard, believe, okay? That gentleman was inspiring. So we passed him going up the Verrazano Bridge and then we start chit-chatting around with Jordan and the third musketeer from Amsterdam. Sorry, I'm blanking your name right now, but basically we start talking, okay, who wants to run 520s? So that was pretty neat. I wish we would have had a bigger group, honestly, because there were some other guys ahead of us that... And this is at the top of the Verrazano Bridge, about mile one, where we're kind of collecting together. So it was neat. We were working together, this gentleman, Jordan, who you're gonna see a lot of and where we start clipping him off together, about a group of four of us, maybe five of us, but then at about mile three or four, it's just Jordan and I going through Brooklyn, going through Brooklyn, trying to relax, trying not to go out in 106.53. Brooklyn is hilly, okay? So for the future, if you're thinking of running... If you're thinking of running this marathon, like Brooklyn is rolling. It's never really completely flat and it's not horrible hills, but you know, it's taking a toll on your legs. So it's definitely smart to save a little bit of energy in those first, well, frankly, those first 11, 12 miles. So we're rolling. Jordan and I are rolling. And real quick note is that it was, I think Brooklyn was the loudest neighborhood. Manhattan was loud as well on First Avenue, but Brooklyn, the streets are narrower. So the noise is that much louder. So shout out to Brooklyn. I think you take the cake for the loudest burrow. And then we're cruising, but then we get to the Orthodox Jewish neighborhood. And it was silent for about a mile and a half, maybe two miles. And honestly, it was really nice. And you get a little, maybe too excited. And so you got to chill out. So we go through the Orthodox Jewish neighborhood, we're cruising, and then we started to get close to the halfway point, the half marathon mark, the Pulaski Bridge, if I'm saying it right. And honestly, everyone, the Verrazano Bridge, don't worry about it. It's not steep. It's kind of long, but it's not that steep. You have all your energy. It's fine. You're going to get up that no problem. The Pulaski Bridge, the halfway point going from Brooklyn over to Queens, that was hard. It was steeper than I expected. And I think it was maybe, now it wasn't that long, but it was just kind of steep. And there was no one cheering around. It was a little breezy on the bridge because there was no buildings. It was very strange. It's kind of like no man's land. So I did, and I had to ask myself, okay, because my legs at about the halfway point, I had to make a decision like, this is either going to get a little ugly today or we're going to have to pick it up and go for it because I was feeling okay, but I wasn't feeling perfect. I think just the remnants of Amsterdam started to kick in. So Jordan and I are still together. We're cranking. Here's probably one of the greatest clips from the day from a gentleman yelling about butter. You better believe it. And then after that, we keep cranking and we're coming up on mile 14 and the Queensborough Bridge, which goes from Queens over to Manhattan. And I loved it. Queensborough Bridge, the third bridge. Yeah, third bridge. Amazing. It's, it's, so it's, you're enclosed. You're actually on the lower level. It's kind of dark. It's quieter and you're just cruising. I cranked it. And this is where Jordan and I actually started to separate. Jordan and I worked together for a long time. Shout out to Jordan. I can tell we're going to race again someday, Jordan, but that's where I started to pay. You know, I'm just going uphill. I started to crank, crank, crank, and then the downhill and then it pops you out onto First Avenue, baby. And that's where I got, I just, I can't help myself. Like I think I have so much. I want to, I want, I want people to understand the gift of running and that, yes, maybe we're not playing in an NBA arena or an NFL stadium, but the streets of New York, it can be exciting too for a running event. So Jordan kind of got used to it, but probably like maybe three or four times, especially in Brooklyn, but I just kind of do this. It's like, come on crowds, like, you're here cheering, but can we hear you? And so I just like, like let's do this. Like we're out here in New York. They shut down the city for us. Let's show them, let's, let's give it to the city, like show them a show and so that they can have stories to share. Anyway, I just get excited as you can tell. So anyway, we turn onto First Avenue. We're cruising down First Avenue. Love First Avenue. Really fun. Feeling really good. I better pull up some splits real quick. So from First Avenue, it looks like I went like 519. This is mile 16, mile 17, 528, mile 18, 501. See, I was feeling okay. Mile 19, 513, mile 25, 18, mile 21, 517. So the goal was five, you know, five, 20 pace, preferably five. So we, okay, I should also mention we came through the halfway point a little slow, a little slower than I had hoped. It was 111. Oh boy. I think it was 111 23. So a little slower than I had hoped. Listen, I was trying to pace it well.  Plus like the rolling hills of Brooklyn, like the pacing was so anyway, it was not perfect pacing. I will admit that the first, but I did not go, I don't think I went out too fast. So I'm proud of that. But then, okay, mile 22, 523, 523, 534. So anyway, I was holding pretty good paces. So after First Avenue, we jump over into the Bronx. And people have said like the Bronx is kind of a quieter neighborhood. This is at about, is it mile, I have the map here. I think it's about mile 20-ish. Around mile, yeah, about mile 20-ish, you hop in there. And it was loud. I would say it was not quiet at all. Now, maybe not huge crowd sizes, because you don't go too far into the Bronx, but it was perfect. Like, I was very impressed with the crowds in the Bronx. So thanks for coming out.  So let me just make sure I'm not missing anything through these first four boroughs. Yeah, I lost my wingman, Jordan, at about mile 50. That's a note I wrote down here. Let's see the splits, First Avenue, Bronx, and then into Fifth Avenue. So, okay, I still had dreams at mile 16 that I could maybe negative split in a big way and hit 219.  I'm not, it's not in my blood to do that. And so I'm happy with the one 111st half. I wish it would have been faster. I'll admit it. I wish it would have been like 110, 15, 110, 20. Oh, what are you going to do? What are you going to do? So, at mile 16 on the downside of the Queensboro, I just said, okay, we didn't get the rest up for nothing. So, let's rock and roll. So, that's what I did. Cruising down first and then back into Manhattan on the fifth and you get into on the Fifth Avenue and the bridges, just so you know, you cross two more bridges, the Willis Avenue Bridge and then, oh, I think it's the Madison Avenue Bridge, maybe, back into Manhattan. The Madison Avenue, nothing to worry about at all. The Willis Avenue was a little, I had a little bit of a climb but nothing compared to Queensboro. So, for those of you who are hopefully running in New York in the future, don't worry about it. Fifth Avenue, okay, coming down mile 22. I'm still in it. Like, I'm still looking at my watch like, four miles to go. It's going to be close. It's going to be tight. I was gunning for it. I just know it like my times were not bad. 523, 523 and then a 534 at mile 24. But then, okay, I should have done, okay, tip of the day. I would, if you have the time, I would recommend going to Fifth Avenue, going up that hill before you take a right into Central Park and just realize that here I am running up the hill. Shout out to this gentleman. I don't even know his name who ran alongside me with a GoPro. You helped me get up that hill, by the way. And this hill was long. It was not crazy steep, but I did not expect it. And it kind of zapped me. My time dropped back to about a 605 it looks like. And so, if I read, yeah, about 605. So it was hard. And then at the top of the hill, you still have, oh man, what is it? Is it two miles to go approximately? About two miles to go. And that I just wasn't ready for Fifth Avenue. So I would, if you have time, study the Fifth Avenue hill. And Jordan and I talked about Fifth Avenue after the race once we crossed the finish line. And then Central Park, not a cakewalk. In fact, it was ridiculously hard. Quite a bit of downhill, which is hard on the quads at the end of the race. And then you get to the bottom of the downhill and you make a hard right at the bottom of Central Park. And it's a slow, steady uphill. And I was toast. And that way that's actually a mile to go, exactly. Right when you make that turn basically. And I had nothing left. Let me just make sure it's a mile to go right there.  Had nothing left.   I think it, I don't know what my, the split, I don't know if this one is actually accurate. It felt closer to like seven minute pace. Like I really dropped off at the end there. So anyway, and then you cruise into the finish. It's amazing, huge crowds. The elites are still kind of hanging around. So that was neat to see some of them. I didn't see Kipchoge. I was kind of looking for him there at the end, but frankly, I didn't have much energy cross, cross in the finish line to, to process much.  And that's an interesting experience as well, because your legs are, are burning and barking at you. So I finished in two hours, 24 minutes and one second, about crazy enough, about 20 seconds ish, 25 seconds slower than Amsterdam. And obviously much hillier course. So I'm just going to say it now. I was going to maybe not say this now. I think if my pacing of New York would have been applied to Amsterdam, I think I would have gotten the 219. I really do. Not the exact pacing, but just like, obviously not like holding back way more in Amsterdam. The first like night, like go out in 10950 or 110 flat and then come back. I think things would, but you know, it's water under the bridge. That's why you go and race. You, you go out to figure out what you can muster and to learn and to fail.  And so that's what I did yesterday, hopefully in New York. And I think somebody tweeted to me, I was like, maybe the 13th American. So that's kind of cool. 36th overall. So I carried you guys with me the whole way. Absolutely. Like I was thinking of you and oh my goodness, just listening to the cheering. So thank you again for the support for that's my analysis. I could say so, so much more about the day, about the race. Overall, okay, I will just say, I just thought of this. I had five Morton gels. Okay. So throughout the race, I carried six. I didn't eat the last one basically because I was cranking and I, I just didn't want to, I didn't really, I had the energy to pull it out and tear it. I don't, anyway, I, maybe I should have had that last one, but I had five and then water at the aid stations was perfect. Way better than Amsterdam grabbing the bottles. Now I splashed the water all over myself, but there are so many aid stations. I just took little sips at not every aid station, probably 80% of them. And pinching the cup at 520 a mile was okay or 525 or whatever the mile was, grabbed it, pinched it, put it back, not a ton. In fact, at one point I said, okay, I got, I don't want to drink too much water. One of the times I accidentally grabbed one of the Gatorades. It was for me, it was too sweet. I had to spit it out and it was just too much for me. So I just stuck to water and the Morton gels and it sat pretty well the whole way. Maybe like a little bit the last mile in my stomach, but it wasn't bad. And then the shoes, I will, okay, I just mentioned real quick, the 4% versus the next percent. The next percent, my feet felt better, a lot better at the end. Like my feet, I didn't really even think about my feet at all until mile 23 in New York. Whereas it was definitely like 18 or 17 in Amsterdam, probably because I was going faster, but I must say, okay, the next percent was pretty, it was nice. And okay, another tip of the day, I know I'm putting a lot out there. The next percent upper scrunches a lot for me. So I put the shoes on in the motel and then I walked, I did not tie the shoes. And then I walked around the village at the Verrazano Bridge going to my corral and the vapor weaves seemed to kind of settle onto my foot, like the tongue and everything. And when I laced it up, it really was nice. So anyway, maybe you don't lace your shoes up in the motel, kind of walk around a little bit in the shoes just to, I don't know, maybe I'm overthinking it, but just to let the shoes kind of figure out how they're going to fit and conform onto your foot, if that makes sense. I know it's going into a lot of detail there, but I was happy, very, very happy with the next percent choice for the big apple, for the big apple. All right, everyone. Okay, let me just make sure I didn't miss anything. Here is the metal. Absolutely epic, just an epic metal. And I think I didn't get it done, but I think I will get it engraved on the back. I got the bib number 1008. You know how I will write my time on there. And I will just say this is an audio book as well. But I would strongly recommend reading this book before you run New York. I learned so much. It is down below from the Amazon. If you want to pick it up there, but you can do audio book, you can pick it up. Probably at a Barnes & Noble as well or a local bookshop as well. So that is it, folks. I could, again, I'm going to stop. Oh my gosh. It was amazing. And I'm just humbled by you, humbled by you. Question of the day. Oh boy. Oh boy. Have you begun to put together your 2020 racing schedule? Have you begun? All right. Now that New York is in the rearview mirror, you better believe I'm starting to make some decisions. And so I'm going to share those with you. This week, not right now. This week, some percolation that's happening in the racing department for myself. So I'll be excited to read. Like, are you getting ready for Boston? Are you getting ready for New York next? Like, who knows? Maybe you're going to get into New York next, but I guess you wouldn't know yet. But maybe Berlin or anything as far as marathons or maybe you're doing peach tree or the Boulder Boulder, which is a 10K here. Or maybe some half marathons 100 mile race, right? I actually rode alongside a gentleman in the subway who he just completed the Leadville 100 this year. And he did New York as well. So that was impressive. But all right, I'm going to cut it there. Cut it there. I hope that helps paint the picture a little bit more as to what was happening on the course. Maybe some tips and tricks for if you ever get into New York. I hope you do. Keep applying. Keep fundraising. If you can do it through charity, that's one way to get in. And I think I'll be back in New York. So maybe we'll do another group run in Central Park next year. You better believe it. Butterman bread, butterman bread. All right, everyone. We're tossing it back tonight to two vlogs. We're going to go back to the Amsterdam Marathon race analysis from two weeks ago. And then also just from a couple of days ago, the group run in Central Park, which was absolutely epic. That'll be on the left and Amsterdam on the right. All right, here we go. Security, work hard, and love each other. See you tomorrow.