The next item of business is a statement by Michael Russell on an update on negotiations on the European Union withdrawal bill. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so if any member wishes to ask a question, I would encourage you to press your request-to-speak buttons now, and I call on the minister, Michael Russell. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and with your permission, I want to update Parliament on the negotiations that have been taking place between the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the UK Government on the issue of the EU withdrawal bill. These have become particularly intense over the past few weeks. The GMC-EN met on 8 March and the plenary met on 14 March. I spoke to David Lidington on the phone on 29 March on 6 April and again last Saturday. I met with David Lidington and Mark Drakeford last Monday. I spoke to Mark Drakeford several times in March and on Friday and Monday. I also wrote to Mr Lidington on Friday that my officials have been in almost constant contact with Welsh and UK officials in the last month. I expect to meet with Mr Lidington and Professor Drakeford again next week. Accordingly, much effort has gone into and will continue to go into seeking and, if at all possible, achieving an agreed approach to the problems presented for the devolved Administrations by the EU withdrawal bill and the Brexit process. Whenever this chamber discusses Brexit, we should always remember that the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. There were majorities to remain in every single local authority area. The Scottish Government remains as committed as ever to EU membership. This week, we have had yet more evidence of the unfolding disaster and confusion that is Brexit. The Prime Minister's refusal to countenance continued membership of the customs union, despite the evidence from her own Government of the damage that will cause, is a result of the internal tensions in her party. There is nothing to do with the best interests of any part of the country that she is meant to serve. Terrifyingly and appallingly, jobs, living standards and even the Good Friday agreement are all secondary concerns for the hard-Brexit ears, who now have the whip hand in Downing Street and, seemingly, for those Tory ministers who put their jobs before the livelihoods and future of their fellow citizens. Many I know were strongly of the view that, because of our country's democratic opposition to Brexit, and particularly the hard Brexit that is currently favoured by the UK Government, that this Parliament and this Government would have been entirely justified in taking a political decision to have nothing to do with the EU withdrawal bill. Of course, as I have told the Parliament in a previous statement, there was no consultation on the content of the bill prior to us saying it in finished form. Moreover, when we did see the bill, it was clear that what was envisaged was nothing less than a crude power grab on the powers of the Scottish people as exercised by their Scottish Parliament. However much we disagree with leaving the EU, regrettably, legal preparations must be made for EU withdrawal, which is what the withdrawal bill seeks to achieve. Even if, at the 11th hour, we were able to avoid Brexit, that would still be the case. The huge, time-consuming task of ensuring the UK's and Scotland's statute book can function properly following EU withdrawal is a necessary one. This Scottish Government has risen to the task. Working with others, different political parties, Governments of different political persuasions, communities and interest groups across Scotland, we have all striven to achieve a better, more acceptable bill. We have undertaken that work with only one absolute red line, which is this. All the preparations for Brexit can and must be done in a way that builds on and is consistent with the principles of devolution, principles that were endorsed overwhelmingly by the people of Scotland in the 1997 referendum. That cannot come as a surprise to anyone. We have repeatedly made this point over many months. We set it in December 2016 in Scotland's place in Europe. We made the point in private to the UK Government before the withdrawal bill was even introduced. We set it out in detail in September 2017 in the legislative consent memorandum for the bill. The Scottish Parliament has also on this issue spoken as one, and its voice has been heard more powerfully because of that unity. In its interim report on the bill, the Finance and Constitution Committee unanimously called the approach of the bill incompatible with the devolution settlement in Scotland. Clause 11, in particular, they warned, would adversely impact on the intelligibility and integrity of the devolution settlement and was a fundamental shift in the structure of devolution in Scotland. Let me focus on the precise words of the committee report for a second. What does it mean to say that the approach of the UK Government is incompatible with the devolution settlement? It means that Clause 11 subverts the principles of that settlement, principles that have given the people of Scotland a stable and effective Parliament for nearly 20 years supported by all parties in this place and which are throughout that time secured good government under different administrations and in response to many difficult political challenges. Presiding Officer, the very heart of those principles is this non-negotiable truth. Changes to the devolution settlement require the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. It is the foundation stone of section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 itself, under which orders adjusting the list of matters reserved to the UK Parliament must be approved, not simply in Westminster but here as well. The Scottish Government intends to protect this essential principle of devolution, but before I turn on how we will do so, I want to indicate those matters on which we have made negotiating progress and I am pleased to say that there are quite a few of them. I pay tribute to the work of David Lidington and Mark Drakeford to our respective officials and to those in this Parliament who have supported and helped the process which has been strengthened by having substantial cross-party support. I thank a number of members of the House of Lords and especially Lord Hope and Lord Mackay of Clashfairn who have shown a keen interest in the matter and have worked hard on it, as has Jim Wallace, David Steele and Daffodd Wigley. Mark Drakeford and I in our conversation yesterday confirmed that we would continue, going forward, to work together on these and all the other Brexit issues and concerns that we have in common. Together with the UK Government, we have agreed that there is an important and difficult job to be done in preparing our laws for EU withdrawal. We have agreed that, ideally, it would be done on a UK-wide basis through co-operation and collaboration between the Governments of these islands. We are agreed that, on leaving the EU, it could make sense for there to be common frameworks applying across the UK in some areas formally covered by common EU rules. Where those frameworks are in Scotland's interests, the Scottish Government is ready to discuss them. We have identified 24 areas where we should be able to work together on the basis of consent from all the Governments involved. The Secretary of State for Scotland has also said, both to the UK Parliament and here, that frameworks should not be imposed on the devolved administrations. We agree with that as well. So, those points, taken together with the principles of devolution, are the basis of something that this Government could consider recommending to Parliament. However, the key sticking point remains, as it always has been, clause 11 and the insistence of the UK Government on its right to take control of devolved powers. Let me set out to Parliament where we are at present on that issue. Tomorrow, we expect the UK Government to publish further amendments to clause 11. We have given them serious and respectful consideration, but we as a Government are absolutely and unanimously clear that we cannot support any proposal that would enable the powers of the Scottish Parliament to be constrained without the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. And the UK Government's latest proposals continue to give Westminster the power to prevent the Scottish Parliament from passing laws in certain devolved policy areas. And while we expect the amendments to include the addition of a sunset clause, the restrictions on the use of these our powers would last for up to seven years. The UK Government says that ban or legal constraint needs to be in place to prevent the Scottish Parliament from legislating in devolved matters, such as farming or fishing, while framework discussions are taking place. But it has never proposed and has indicated that it could not accept such a legal constraint for England. Any constraint placed on the UK Government will therefore be purely voluntary. Given the seemingly endless political uncertainty at Westminster, who can say what a future Prime Minister or UK Government will choose to do in the future? But during the period of restraint, the Scottish Parliament will lack the ability to ensure that our laws in these areas, environmental protection for example, can keep pace with EU law. During the same period, Westminster politicians or those that replace them of whatever political or constitutional hue will have a totally free hand to pass legislation directly affecting Scotland's fishing industry, our farmers, our environment, our public sector procurement rules, the safe use of chemicals, our food safety, the list is long, while our Parliament's hands would be tied. It is also worth noting that, while discussion and political agreement may have reduced the number of areas that may be subject to such restrictions to 24, under the UK Government's proposals, there will be nothing on the face of the bill that limits possible restrictions to these areas. Again, we are being asked to take that on trust. How could we recommend giving consent to a bill that would place Scotland in such a vulnerable position in these uncertain political times? In an effort to allay our concerns, we understand that the UK Government may also propose a further political commitment to effect that it will not normally make these regulations without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. However, that would not form part of any legislative amendment. In any event, if we agreed to this, the terms of the UK Government approach mean that it would still be for the UK Government and ultimately the House of Commons to determine what is normal and what is not. It will also be for Westminster to decide whether the Scottish Parliament is acting reasonably on any occasion and which it opps to withhold consent. In that respect, we cannot forget that the UK Government has gone out of its way during the Brexit process to remind people that it can legislate on any matter at any time. Indeed, in relation to the Sewall convention, the UK Government lawyers told the Supreme Court whether circumstances are normal is a quintessential matter of political judgment for the Westminster Parliament. Let me cut to the chase. Notwithstanding the more benign language now being used, the effect of the UK Government's latest proposals remains this. The Scottish Parliament's powers could be restricted for a period of up to seven years without its consent. That is not something the Scottish Government could recommend that the Parliament approves. However, there is still a way forward. In fact, there are two possible ways forward, and I have outlined those to David Lidington. The First Minister has now outlined them to the Prime Minister today. The first is to simply remove clause 11 from the bill. Both the Scottish and UK Governments could then agree on equal terms not to bring forward legislation in devolved policy areas while negotiations or frameworks are taking place. In fact, in that way, the Scottish Government is offering exactly the same certainty now being offered by the UK Government. We could do so as we have indicated within a written and signed document that shows that neither side would unreasonably withhold agreement. We believe that if such a voluntary agreement is good enough for Westminster, it should also be good enough for Holyrood. That solution would also demonstrate equity of treatment in keeping with repeated assurances made to the people of Scotland during and after the 2014 referendum and as part of the 2016 referendum campaign. However, if the UK Government rejects this reasonable proposal, then we have another one. We could agree to abide by the present system. In that system, any regulations preventing the Scottish Parliament from legislating in devolved matters for a temporary period of time must only be introduced when that is agreed by the Scottish Parliament. That means that amendments to clause 11 must make it clear that absolute Scottish Parliament consent is required. There must be no override power for UK ministers in the withdrawal bill. That will be consistent with the way other order-making powers are currently exercised and with the devolution settlement. That is a proposal that we have repeatedly made to the UK Government. Those are practical and workable solutions to the issue that will ensure the necessary preparation for Brexit can be taken across the UK whilst protecting devolution. They are both on offer. By continuing to work with the Welsh Government and the UK, we can make progress on them, but in the end it will be for this Parliament to make the final decision. It is the Scottish Parliament that will give or withhold legislative consent to the UK-EU withdrawal bill. Later this week, following the lodging and Westminster of the UK Government's proposed amendments, the Scottish Government will lay in Parliament a supplementary legislative consent memorandum. In it, we will spell out in detail the Scottish Government's remaining concerns about the bill and suggest these options as a way forward. It will express our wish to come to an agreement with the UK Government, but it will also make it clear that if clause 11 is not removed or if the necessary changes to clause 11 are not made, we will not recommend that Parliament consents to the EU withdrawal bill as a whole. It will also set out our view on other clauses, indicate what we could accept if agreement can be reached and outline how we intend to proceed with the continuity bill, which we will defend vigorously in the courts. At the end of this process, this Parliament will decide how it wants to proceed. It will then be for the UK Government and UK Parliament to respond to that decision. It will have to do so by the third reading of the bill and the Lord's, the last opportunity to make any substantive changes to it in Westminster. That is what is required by our constitution, no less than authority on the matter than Professor Tomkins has described the Sewell Convention in this chamber as a binding rule of constitutional behaviour. Breach it, he warned, and there will be a high political price to pay indeed. It would be an outrage if the UK Government decided to use what the people of Scotland did not vote for, Brexit, to undermine what we did vote for, devolution. The UK Government has no mandate to undermine the powers of this Parliament, and therefore the Scottish Government will do everything that we can to protect the devolution settlement that people voted for so overwhelmingly more than 20 years ago. We want to agree with the UK Government and move this issue on so that we can spend time on the substantive and dangerous challenges that Brexit presents more and more pressingly to this nation, but we cannot agree at any price, and certainly not at the price of undermining this Parliament and the essential work that it does for all the people of Scotland. I thank the minister for early sight of his statement. It is deeply disappointing that the minister has come to this chamber without a deal today. As he knows, we on these benches have been critical of the process around clause 11 since last summer, but the United Kingdom Government has in recent weeks stepped up the pace, listened to the concerns that were raised and has come forward with a new offer that it will publish tomorrow. Yet it would appear for narrow political reasons the SNP once again says no. Presiding Officer, it seems that it has nothing to do with a matter at hand and everything to do with their obsession with a second referendum on independence. Can the minister confirm the following two points? In his statement, he claims that he is still working together with the Welsh Government. Has he been informed of the Welsh Government's view of the new proposed amendments to clause 11 or have they kept him out of the loop? Last September, the minister, Mr Russell, said, and I quote, we cannot envisage a situation in which Scotland would be content and Wales not be or vice versa. Has anything changed or is that still his position? Secondly, is not it the case that he, in fact, was prepared to sign up to this deal today, but was overruled last week by the First Minister? Is not it the case that when it comes to consent, he was prepared to give it, but she refused? Michael Russell? Let me respond to three points, not just the two questions. On the first point, there is nothing narrow about standing up for the powers of this Parliament. That is what we were all elected to do. The heart of this matter is very simple. The issue at stake has been boiled down to its irreducible minimum, and that is this, that we can consent and move forward by consent or we can be refused the opportunity to consent. Now, the offer is on the table. I have made it very clear that there are two options in here, neither of which we would accept. I make that absolutely clear, either of which we would accept, but there has to be a decision by the UK Government to respect the devolution settlement. That is non-negotiable. To address the two points, it is up to the Welsh Government to say what their position would be. I have discussed these matters over a range of days and a range of opportunities with Mark Drakeford. As I said in my statement, the thing that we agreed last night—actually, at 25 past 5 last night, when I was on a cul-mac ferry on the way back from Mull, what we agreed last night was, no matter the decision of either Government—and we are entitled to make it—we would go on working together on the key issues that confront both administrations for Brexit. There are some things that rise above the narrow political advantage of the Tories in Brexit, and the thing that rises above it is the work that the Welsh Government and we will do to defend the devolved settlements, and we will go on doing that together. As for the final question, Mr Tomkins is clearly not close to what is being taken place. Anybody who is close to what is taking place would know that the situation as I left it with David Lidington in our conversation on Saturday is that we cannot move forward on the basis of lack of consent for the Scottish Parliament. I stand for square behind that position. As I indicated, so does the entire Government. There is no crack in that. Either, and, and either, every member of this chamber stands for square behind that. You have to ask, what are they doing here? Neil Findlay to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Thank you for saying that. I thank the cabinet secretary for the early sight of the statement. All through this process, Scottish Labour has worked with others to try and bring about a resolution to the disagreements around the devolution of powers after Brexit. That is because we believe in devolution. In the commons lesley layer put forward amendments in the House of Commons that would have resolved the situation, and disgracefully Tory MPs were whipped to oppose them. Early on in the process, we proposed standstill agreements and a sunset clause, but the cabinet secretary was dismissive of that approach until the First Minister and the cabinet secretary later went on to propose the very same. All along, we have taken the cabinet secretary at face value. I mean my colleagues, we have worked with him on the continuity bill. He has up until today shared information on latest developments and negotiations, but today I will ask no phone calls, no texts, no briefings, no nothing. All we have today is to go on this statement. I begin by acknowledging and welcoming the progress that has been made on a range of issues. It is clear, as we have asked all along, that the three Governments have worked constructively to find some compromise on some of the key issues, and progress has been made on that as welcome. Ultimately, we do not have an agreement. Again, if the Scottish Government's position is shared by the Government of Wales, is there no agreement there, too? What will happen if the Scottish Government's continuity bill is struck down by the Supreme Court? Where does that leave us? What scope is there for further last-minute progress? Picking up on Mr Tomkins' point, which I did not know, but clearly from today, the body language but lack of real language between the cabinet secretary and the First Minister would suggest that a deal—oh, now they are all pals. That would suggest that there was potentially a deal to be struck, and the cabinet secretary wanted to sign it, but it has been kiboshed by the First Minister. Is it his opinion that the Scottish Government should have an absolute veto at all times? I hope that the cabinet secretary and the First Minister are not playing political games here with another round of constitutional politicking, because that would be a betrayal of the good faith that we have invested in this process. To paraphrase the cabinet secretary in his statement, it would be an outrage for the Scottish Government to use the devolution that the Scottish people did vote for to pursue independence that the Scottish people did not vote for. I have to see a new side of Neil Findlay today. I did not realise that he was a man of such sensitivity that his antennae could tell him instantly what the state of the relationship was between myself and the First Minister, or indeed anybody else, presumably. I can assure you that the relationship with the First Minister seems fine to me, and I think that it seems fine to her, too. The reality of this situation is clear. What we need to know from Mr Findlay did not arise in his question, no doubt, because he was too busy carefully staring at us to work out whether the First Minister and I were inching together or inching apart. He did not tell us any stage whether he would stand up for the rights of the Scottish Parliament and oppose the imposition. If he indicates that he is willing to do so, I am very glad about that, because I want to continue to work with everybody on those issues, because the core issue is very clear. Notwithstanding the more benign language that is sometimes used by Westminster, there is a clear issue in here. Is the Scottish Parliament going to consent or is it not going to be asked for its consent? Are those restrictions going to last for seven years or are we going to have a voluntary working together? As far as the issue of the Supreme Court is concerned, we will vigorously defend our legislation, legislation that I am glad to acknowledge voted for. The chamber voted for by 95 votes to 32. We believe that that legislation is not only justifiable but necessary, and we will stick with it. In terms of working with the Government of Wales, we will go on doing so. I repeat what I had with Mark Drakeford last night. Whatever the decision of the Government of Wales, whatever the decision of the Government of Scotland, we will continue to stand together on the issues of defending devolution and will continue to ensure that our interests are defended in this process. We will go on doing that, and I am sure that Neil Finlay will not wish to drive us apart from the Labour Government in Wales. I have repeatedly said how sceptical I am that the UK Government would back down from its power grab approach. Rather than those MSPs who seem eager to sign off a deal that undermines devolution, I believe that MSPs of all political parties should be resolute. Members of this Parliament should not be undermining this Parliament or going along with a Brexit power grab, which does so. The UK Government has no mandate to undermine the powers of the Scottish Parliament, and that is absolutely right. Surely there is also now a bigger question. Is it not time, with all that we now know, about the Cambridge Analytica scandal, about the anonymous Tory donors channeling their money through the DUP and back again to avoid transparency rules, and indeed about the whistleblower revelations about the illegal co-ordination between different parts of the leave campaign? Is it not time to say that the entire EU referendum result is in question and there is no safe mandate for the UK to leave the European Union? I have the greatest sympathy for that point of view. The fact that there is all this hollow laughter from the Tories strikes me as the air of nervous laughter, because they are being caught out in what was a shabby, unpleasant campaign and with a result that does not have. That is really vitally important. That result does not have the agreement of the people of Scotland, and this is Scotland's Parliament. That may come as a surprise to the Tories, but this is Scotland's Parliament. Therefore, it is vital that there were one or two members on the Tory benches who were supporting Brexit. That was a reasonable and honourable position, but there were members on the Tory benches who, the day after the result, were clamouring to stay in the single market in the customs union and were now running away from it as fast as possible. That does not strike me as principled politics and it does not strike me as honest to the people whom they represent. Mr Harvey is absolutely correct to raise these issues, but it is equally important that we try and separate out, as this Government has tried to separate out from the beginning, the issues of making sure that there is a statute book prepared for Brexit, hopefully it will not happen, but prepared for Brexit, and the issue of opposing Brexit. We continue to oppose Brexit, but we have tried. We continue to try to get the statute book into the right condition so that it is ready. We stand ready to do so in the terms of the proposals that I have laid out here today. I would commend anybody who has influence with the UK Government. I do not know if anybody has influence in the UK Government. It strikes me as a Prime Minister who does not listen to anybody but herself. However, if anybody has influence with the UK Government, then make sure that they understand that those two offers are offers that we are happy to accept and which will conclude this matter. Tavish Scott, to be followed by Bruce Crawford. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also thank the minister for the copy of his statement in advance. Mr Russell has made much to this Parliament, indeed in selling his approach of the very close working relationship between him and his Welsh counterpart, and indeed with the Welsh Government more generally. Indeed, he stressed that time and time again today. It now appears obvious that the Welsh Government is going to accept the UK Government's amendments tomorrow. What will he do in those circumstances? What is now the difference between Cardiff and Edinburgh? It is up to the Welsh Government, as I said, to say—I mean, I know Mr Scott likes hypothetical questions, and I think that he has a reputation for them in a previous session of this Parliament. However, I do want to go back to what I said in my statement about my discussions with Mark Drakeford, because it is absolutely clear, and both of us believe the same thing, that no matter the decisions that either side comes to, there will be continued to have. I quote again what I said. Mark Drakeford and I, in our conversation yesterday, confirmed that we will continue going forward to work together on these and all the other Brexit issues concerns that we have in common. That is the answer to the member's questions. We will continue to do that, no matter the position that either Government takes. However, no matter the position that either Parliament takes, because I have also stressed in this statement very clearly that the decision on the supplementary legislative consent memorandum will come to this Parliament, and it will be for Parliament to take a position on that. We will lay out in greater detail the things that I have indicated today, and then the Parliament will have a choice. However, I have also indicated earlier in the statement that I expect to meet with Mr Lidington and Professor Drakeford next week, and we will continue in those discussions. The view in those meetings has also been that, if we could get the Northern Ireland Assembly up and running, if we could overcome the historic mistake from the Tories of relying on DUP votes, which has made that ever more unlikely, if we could overcome that, we might also be able to have four nations sitting at those tables and trying to find a way forward on the basis of consent. I go back to that point, on the basis of consent. That is the issue that we are addressing in here, and that is the issue that we need to get resolved. Bruce Crawford will be followed by Jackson Carlaw. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can the minister please confirm that there are the correct understanding of what he has set out in his statement? Am I correct that the UK Government is proposing that there are a different set of rules for the UK, compared with here at Holyrood, in regard to some areas of the devolved powers? Am I further correct that they are proposing that the Holyrood would be bound by UK statute from acting in these devolved powers for at least seven years, whereas the UK Government will not be similarly constrained and have asked us to trust them that they will not seek to change any devolved powers in those areas? Do you believe that this proposal upholds a central principle of devolution—because this is what this is all about—that Holyrood should always give its consent to changes in devolved powers being proposed by the UK Government? Mr Crawford puts it pithily and succinctly, as ever. That is exactly the situation that we are being asked to agree to something and to accept legislative constraint upon us in those areas for a period of seven years, but there will be no equivalent legislative constraint on the UK Parliament or government. That is exactly what they are saying. I have to say that, although I am a very trusting individual, I do think that in these circumstances trust should go both ways. What we are saying is that if that is the relationship that you want to have, you trust us and we will trust you. That is, I would have thought, a very reasonable way of going ahead. If you trust us and we trust you and we write that down and we are quite prepared to put it in a written agreement, then we will have the basis of moving forward. I think that that is something that most people will look at and say, if that is how a deal should be done, do it. Jackson Carlawd will be followed by Joe McAlpine. The atmosphere is clearly heightened, but can I implore ministers to do all that they can to work to secure an agreement until the very last minute, not frankly on the basis of late and random proposals made now, but on the basis of the working amendment on offer? The minister spelled out this afternoon the concessions that the UK Government has made, but he has not spelled out what the concessions have been that the Scottish Government has made in this process. Will he do so? Given that he, Ash Denham, Stuart McMillan, all made their interventions in the last statement, absolutely fundamentally on the basis that the lock-step approach with Wales was fundamental to challenging the impression that there was anything here that could evidence a constitutional obsession with the Scottish Government, what will ordinary Scots now make of the fact that, if Wales does agree, it is Scotland alone that is now standing against an agreement clearly in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom? The member started well with the appeal to reason, but he did not finish very well. I think that ordinary people will look at this Parliament and say that they will elect it to the Parliament to stand up for Scotland. That is what we are here for. In those circumstances, those members are prepared to stand up for Scotland. They are prepared to say that the people who voted for the devolved Parliament have the right to be listened to and the people who did not vote for Brexit have the right to be listened to, but they will also look at us and say that this is a Government that is offering a compromise. The compromise that is being offered is absolutely clear. We are prepared to voluntarily restrict the way in which we operate, the powers that we have, as long as the UK Government agrees to its own voluntary restriction, and they will both have given up substantive amounts in order to come to a fair agreement about how we would operate. That is a massive concession. I have to say that, at the beginning of the process, as I said in my statement, we have been quite entitled, given the way that we have been treated, given the way that this legislation came about, given what is in this legislation, to throw our hands up and say that enough is enough that we are not going to be treated in this way. However, I have to say that, painstakingly, over many, many months we have worked on those issues. We got to the list of 24, eventually. After a lot of work, we got the acceptance of the principles on which we would make that list, eventually. We have now got to the stage where there is a very clear choice, so I agree with Mr Carlaw. Let us not hype this up in the way that Mr Tomkins was hyping it up at the beginning. Let us keep it nice and calm. What we have got here, some of the toys cannot do that, but I can do it. Let us try to keep this nice and calm. I am afraid that they are not up to this challenge, but I will give it a third shot. Let us keep this nice and calm. We have made an offer of a choice, and the UK Government now has the opportunity to respond to that. I urge them to be calm—they are usually calmer than the Scottish Tories—to look at the choice that they have, and let us come to the voluntary agreement that we need to get. I also urge all members and ministers to be succinct to the next few questions and answers. Joan McAlpine to be full wide, James Kelly. The minister has made it clear that the Scottish Parliament could be prevented from legislating in a wide range of devolved areas for shockingly up to seven years. What impact does he think that this could have on vital Scottish interests, particularly in the context of trade deals being struck after Brexit? The issue of trade deals is clearly very much on people's minds. The issue of the much-talked-about but fortunate-so-far-never-eaten chlorinated chicken comes to mind. There is a whole range of food safety issues, for example, which could simply be imposed upon Scotland and we would have no possibility of resisting them. We go into other areas, environmental areas, into the administration and development of agricultural policy, fishing a whole range of things that give us serious cause of concern, and that is only with the present UK Government. I know that it is always a very foolish thing to say that things could not get worse, but my experience in politics is that they often can. Can you imagine a Boris Johnston Government, a Rhys Mogg Government? I know that that sounds ridiculous, but we live in a very bizarre world. Can you imagine that? What that type of Government might want to do and would be able to do because the Scottish Parliament could not stop them doing that? If that does not concentrate minds in this chamber, I do not know what would. James Kelly is being followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you. Can I ask the minister what would be the legal standing of the supplementary LCM that he proposes if the challenge in the courts to the EU continuity bill was successful? I think that that is a question that I would want to seek opinion on, because I do not think that I am in a position to give a legal opinion, and I do not think that I should give a legal opinion. I think that the situation is that we will proceed to defend the continuity bill, as we believe that the bill is entirely within the competence of this Parliament. We are also in a position where we will bring the supplementary legislative consent memorandum. It will go to the committee of which Mr Kelly is still a member, the Finance and Constitution Committee. I am sure that there will be a searching examination of it, and then it will be up to the chamber to decide what to do. However, I do not really want to be in a position of giving Mr Kelly a legal opinion. I know that he can get some of those closer to home, but I do not really think that I should do that. Stuart McMillan is to be followed by Maurice Golden. The ministers indicated earlier that this is not the end of the process. What remaining opportunities are there for the UK Government to put this right and amend their bill to ensure that it respects this Parliament? Minister. There remains the time for them to do so in the House of Lords at the third reading, which is presently scheduled. I understand that, for the middle of May or that timetable, of course, it can always slip. We would like to have seen this resolved earlier, but we cannot resolve it on the basis of the present discussions. I think that it is quite clear that we have made substantial progress, and it has been given on both sides. However, this is a fundamental point, and we cannot work our way round fundamental points. I know that that is something that the UK Government keeps trying to do. This is a fundamental point that we have to address, and therefore we are placing it here very clearly. However, we could resolve this this afternoon. The First Minister has written to the Prime Minister and has said that this is a choice that we think needs to be made. If the Prime Minister were to come back and choose either of those options, then it would be resolved. There is time to do that, and I hope that we are able to do it. Maurice Golden, to be followed by Ash Denham. Did the First Minister overrule the Minister on making a deal? No. Ash Denham, to be followed by Neil Bibby. The statement clearly revolves around the significant issues that are remaining over clause 11, but the minister in his statement outlined that there has been progress in other areas of the withdrawal bill. Could the minister outline what those areas are and whether they now meet the approval of the Scottish Government? I listed a whole range of those areas in my statement. I will not go back through them, but I did say that, in the conclusion of my statement, I said that we will bring forward a supplementary legislative consent memorandum later this week. It will outline in more detail those matters and will indicate what we propose to do about them, but I think that it is right to focus and I would encourage people to focus on the issue of clause 11. I think everything else is absolutely secondary now in those circumstances. Clause 11 is the issue that requires to be resolved, so we need to focus on clause 11 and we need to find a resolution to it. Neil Bibby, to be followed by Ivan McKee. I welcome and acknowledge the progress that has been made, but I also have to express disappointment and frustration that, all these months later, we still do not have a deal. The minister will know that I have pressed the case for the use of standstill agneamants and sunset clauses. He will recall that Nicola Sturgeon and Carwyn Jones wrote jointly offering a sunset clause as a potential solution to clause 11. We now see a sunset clause on the table, but the minister appears to be objecting to it lasting up to seven years. Does he have a specific objection to up to seven years, and if so, what timeframe would be acceptable to the Scottish Government? It is a combination of the time and the lack of consent that are the issues. A sunset clause is obviously useful to have, and we have never opposed it, but we have been doubtful about it because it is the issue of consent that is more important. The issue of consent remains at the centre of those concerns. The member says that he is frustrated that there is no solution. I am frustrated that there is no solution. To be entirely blunt about it, I could probably do without committing backwards and forwards to London to have these discussions. I could probably do without late Saturday afternoon discussions with David Littington. I am frustrated too, but my job is to make sure that I do not sell the pass. The pass here is to make sure that we defend the Scottish Parliament and the devolution settlement. I absolutely will not sell the pass on those issues. I am a key to be followed by Graham Simpson. I thank the minister for that statement updating us on the negotiations. A key point however remains that we cannot give up on the single market and the customs union despite the Tory's best attempts. Will the minister continue to fight for a differentiated solution for Scotland that will protect jobs, living standards and our economy? Yes, I will. The single market and customs union issue is vitally important. I am pleased to see that the position of the Labour Party has moved towards the customs union. I think that there was some indication in Emily Thornbray's contributions over the weekend and yesterday that further movement was possible. I welcome that, because I think that single market membership and customs union membership are absolutely vital. Of course, the UK Government knows that, because the UK Government has its own figures. The UK Government, in undertaking the analysis that we have undertaken to, has come to the conclusion that of the three options that exist, single market and customs union membership, a Canada Plus type of deal and a WTO rules deal. Even single market membership means that people are worse off, but it is far, far better than the other two. Those are facts and those are known to the UK Government. What is the most astonishing thing is that a Government that knows those things, ministers who know those things, are proceeding with a fantasy about some advantages that will exist in free trade deals elsewhere. When the figures show, that is minuscule compared to the advantages of the existing customs union. I saw the trade secretary tweeting about this at the weekend. The trade secretary knows, he knows from those figures, that those free trade agreements do not produce anything like the advantages compared to the disadvantages of leaving the customs union. I do find that, frankly—well, I think that there is only one word for it—disgusting. Graham Simpson, to be followed by Clare Haughey. Last year, Mike Russell told the Finance and Constitution Committee and I quote, I cannot envisage a situation in which Scotland would be content and Wales would not be or vice versa. Is that still his position? Mr Simpson has asked a question that was asked about four questions ago, so I would respectfully suggest that he catches up, but the situation is, as I have outlined it all afternoon—it is very strange that the Tories are so concerned with Wales. I cannot remember Tories concerned with Wales ever before. Isn't that odd? However, the reality of the situation is that it is up for the Welsh Government and the Welsh Parliament to make their decision. It is up to us—Mr Simpson is a member of the Scottish Parliament, I remind him—that it is up to the Scottish Parliament to make decisions. However, I also go back to a point that I have made many times, but I am just going to make it again. It is absolutely clear from the discussion between myself and Mr Drakeford yesterday. As I said, I was speaking from a Kalmack ferry from Mull, and I read the point again. We confirmed—well, if you do not like the answer, you should not ask the question so often. We confirmed that we would continue going forward to work together on these and on all the other Brexit issues and concerns that we have in common. That was my answer 20 minutes ago. It was my answer 10 minutes ago. It is my answer now, and if Mr Simpson comes back to it tomorrow, it will be my answer then. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the minister for the information already provided, but can he advise what assurances the Scottish Government received from the UK Government about how devolved Governments will be consulted going forward? Minister. That is a number of the matter. Clare Haughey has just returned to it. The number of the matter is that there could be consultation, but there certainly will not be a role for decision making. In other words, we might be asked our opinion, but if our opinion is not what the UK Government want, then it does not matter. That is not how we can do business. That is not how any member of this Parliament should be able to do business. We should be able to stand there as equals, discussing those issues with other Administrations and making sure that we come to a common mind on them. That is mature politics, and that is what we should be doing. Thank you very much. That concludes our ministerial statement and questions. We will now move on to the national plan for Gaelic. We will just take a few moments for our members and the ministers to change seats.


section 2 of plate tectonics for geology 1010 introduction to geology. This section was on convergent plate boundaries. These are very interesting plate boundaries. They created a number of interesting features in some cases volcanoes, deep ocean trenches, and some of the tallest mountain ranges in the world. Of the three types of plate motion convergent boundaries are boundaries where plates are moving toward each other. These are compressional forces. So convergent meaning two things moving towards each other for things come together. These are known as destructive boundaries because in many cases especially when seduction is occurring the plates are essentially destroyed. There are three types of convergent boundaries and it all has to do with the types of plates that are interacting with each other. When you have an oceanic crust ramming into a continental crust you get ocean continent. When you have ocean crust running into ocean crust you get ocean ocean. And finally when continent crust runs into continental crust you get continent continent. All types of convergence where the plates are moving towards each other. Ocean ocean and ocean continent both create trenches volcanoes and very large earthquakes. Continent continent still creates earthquakes but does not create volcanoes. It also creates very large mountain ranges. Here is the first scenario continental crust versus oceanic crust. If you predicted that the oceanic crust depicted here by the guy with the football would be subducted below the continental crust then you're right. Some of the features that you see when you have continent and ocean converging is a deep ocean trench from where the oceanic plate is being subducted. An accretionary wedge this is material that has been smeared onto the side of the continent as the oceanic crust is subducted it smears or accretes material onto the side of the continent. This can be anything from ocean sediments to micro continents islands things like that. As the ocean crust is subducted it brings with it water and once the ocean crust is been subducted down into the planet that water starts to be driven off by the heat of the planet and in turn the water essentially contaminates the mantle allowing for the melting of that mantle wedge above the subducted plate and what that will do that melted material rises up slowly through the continental crust until you get a line of volcanoes known as a volcanic arc. Oftentimes it's arc shaped on the globe. These areas have some of the largest earthquakes ever recorded and like I said they also create these explosive arcs of volcanoes. Where is this happening? South America is a great example. Note the deep ocean trench all along the western coast of South America and then right after that trench you have the Andes and these the Andes are a number of active volcanoes explosive volcanoes all along the margin of the continent related to the subduction zone here oceanic plate and continental plate converging and the ocean plate gets subducted you get these arc shaped zones of volcanoes and some of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded on our planet is in this area in the subduction zone. An American example North American example of this same kind of scenario is where the small Juan de Fuca plate is being subducted under the Pacific Northwest creating all of the majestic mountains known in Washington state and Oregon including Mount Hood and Mount St. Helens and Mount Rainier and a number of other major mountains in the area. As this plate seducts it creates these volcanoes and the earthquakes experienced in the area. Notice that this tiny plate is relatively small and extremely new relatively speaking as compared to some of the other plates that are seducted. So it is seducting out of what we call a relatively shallow angle since the plate is so young and so hot it's riding high. Here's a depiction of what we think is going on. The Juan de Fuca is just a remnant of what used to be a very large plate known as the Farallon. The Farallon was also seducting shallowly and pushing the whole western edge of the North American plate in helping create the ancestral Rocky Mountains and a number of the volcanoes that are left over here in Utah. As the Farallon plate was completely subducted the the divergent zone that was creating it got subducted as well and that slowly turned into what is now a transverse zone where San Francisco is creating the San Andreas Fault and we'll talk about those types of plate boundaries in the near future. What happened to that Farallon plate as it was seducted? We have seismic tomography images or basically a seismic CAT scan of the inside of our planet. There's the western edge of North America and there that blue blob we think represents remnants of the Farallon plate. We're still trying to understand exactly what happens to these plates after they're subducted. Terrains goes back to that picture of those accretionary wedges, those accretionary zones where things are smeared onto the side of the continent.  Accretion is the process of that smearing, it's the smearing process. As you accrete things you often create mountains, this process is known as orogenesis. Larger buoyant features like some microcontinents don't subduct easily and they're more likely to get smeared onto the side of the continent as depicted here.  As this approaches the subduction zone it gets accreted onto the side of this continent here, the green layer here in the accretionary prism or accretionary wedge right here. Okay, another scenario is when you have oceanic plate and oceanic plate and we'll pick that up in the next video just to keep these videos short and easy to upload.


Hi, I'm Baylor Cardica. I'm a senior emergency services coordinator with the Cal OES debris operations team. I work in the debris operation section of Cal OES. Basically debris operations is basically the first step to recovery after any disaster whether that be wildfires, floods, earthquakes, anything along those lines. Subree is one of the first things obviously to be removed so the survivor can get back on the track to recovery. I'm really proud to work at Cal OES for the multiple operations that I've worked over the last four years. It's humbling for me and really fulfilling to be able to help these survivors right after a disaster in the first step of recovery. This is probably the most unique job and has given me a lot of the coolest experiences to meet the coolest people around the state to work hand in hand with you know effective communities. I'm Baylor Cardica and I am Cal OES.


Hello! In this presentation, we will record transactions related to the accounts receivable or sale cycle. We will be focusing in on the accounts receivable account recording transactions for work done on account, meaning we do work and have not yet received the cash, and then we will then receive the cash. Therefore, we're working mainly with accounts receivable, revenue, and cash. It's helpful to work by cycle here rather than just by date because it will let us see what is happening in terms of a particular process, a particular process within the accounting department. So it's good to work a few problems by cycle and then a few problems that's just going to be by date, not necessarily by cycle, working on the entire accounting transaction, whatever happens to happen at any particular date, bouncing around from department to department. We're going to record these journal entries in the general journal on the left hand side. We will then post them not to the general ledger, but to this worksheet. Later on, we will post to the general ledger, but for now we will be working with a worksheet because it will provide quick information for a relatively few amount of journal entries in order for us to see the impact on each account and on net income very quickly. We will then go to the accounting equation and see the effect of each transaction on the accounting equation as well. Note that we do have the accounts in order of the accounting equation of assets, then liabilities, then equity, then revenue and expenses. We're going to start with zero balances at this point in time. We're then going to record our transactions here and result in an ending balance after every transaction, that ending balance hopefully always remaining in balance. Let's take a look at the first transaction we have perform work on account and invoice the client. So we're going to do work and invoice the client. Therefore, first question is cash affected? We're going to say no, not in this case because we invoiced and we have not done work. Key word for many book problems will be on account. In real life, of course, we would know that we basically invoiced the client and have not received cash at this time. And recording this transaction would be probably routine. We probably might not even know the journal entry or whoever is processing this may just send an invoice out, not really know the journal entry. But in the book problem and in real life, we want to know what's going on so that if there is an issue, we can go in and kind of see what the system is doing. And a book problem is going to have to tell us in words that we didn't get money, we got something on account. Typically using the word on account, they may use the term on credit. The problem with the term on credit is that it mixes up what a debit and credit is and having credit terms. So a lot of times books will avoid that by saying on account. So let's record this trend that we're first going to say cash is not affected. Then I would focus in on what we received. What did we get? And in this case, we got something intangible. We got an IOU. We've got a client Owing us money. That's going to be accounts receivable. It's not as good as cash, but it is still an asset. It's our second favorite asset. We expect that to be converted into cash within 30 to 60 days. Therefore, it's still a pretty good thing. So we're going to say it's an asset and as an asset, assets have normal debit balances. We need to make it go up, people Owing us more money. Therefore, we're going to do the same thing to it, which in this case is another debit. So I'm going to put my cursor here on E6, going to copy this, going to put that on transaction a, I'm going to put it right on top in B5, right click and paste it, not normal. I don't want to change the format of the text, but 123, just the values only. So there's that half of the transaction and you could just type it in there, but I would recommend copying and pasting. That helps me from avoiding errors and spelling errors and whatnot, at least reduces those greatly. Then we're going to say that we have a 13,000 is the amount. So we're going to just type that in C5 13,000. I'm not going to put any commas or any kind of other referencing. And when we select enter, then the Excel will put those commas and references in there in accordance with the format of the cell. Now we've worked last time with these transactions, I'm going to represent negative numbers with the credits. And I'm going to try to use a formula here, I could just type in negative 13,000. But I'm going to go ahead and use a formula and try to connect as much as possible. So I'm going to say, if this is a debit, this needs to be a credit. And instead of saying equals negative, if I just start this, I'm going to delete that, if I just start with a negative, that's going to tell Excel if I point to anything else, it's like an equal sign, it's going to try to take that cell. So I'm going to point to this 13. And it's going to say, okay, you want that C5 13,000, and it's going to flip the sign basically in essence, multiplying it times negative one. So that's one way that we can kind of have a formula. So I'm just including one more formula, you don't need to do that, you can type in a negative 13,000. But the more formulas we have, the better off, we usually are the less work we typically have in the long run, especially if we have to make adjustments for errors. Now we just need to know what the other side of the transaction is. And when people owe us 13,000, they owe us it because we did work. And when we do work, we earn revenue according to the revenue recognition, which is an accrual principle, we recognize regular revenue, when work is completed, when it is done. And that's typically the point in time close enough to when we send out the invoice. So we know that we're going to credit revenue. Now we already knew that I'm sorry, I'm going to copy that I'm going to put that in B five B six, right click, paste 123, there's our journal entry. If I want to indent this a little, I might double click on it and spacebar three times and indent it like that. So there we have it. Now we might want to double check why we are crediting revenue. We know we credited it because we debited the accounts receivable. However, we might actually want to ask ourselves if I hadn't, you know, debited receivable, would I know that I could credit revenue to answer that, we would say, well, revenue, if we look at our cheat sheet would be a normal balance of a credit revenue never goes down, meaning the clients or customers never pay us. We pay the clients or customers. And therefore we're going to increase revenue. How do we increase something? We do the same thing to it as its normal balance. So revenue has an credit normal balance, we will then increase it by doing the same thing to it by crediting revenue. So let's post this, this is the beginning balance. This is going to be the column we will post to. So I'm going to say revenue or accounts receivables here, I'm going to go to sell G six and say equals and then point to that 13,000. That's just going to pull that number over. It'll go from zero up by 13,000 to 13,000, put us out of balance by 13,000. And there we have that no, no effect on net income from that part of the transaction. Then we're going to post the revenue side. So here's revenue there, here's revenue starts at zero, we're going to be recording in cell G 12. So in cell G 12, I'm going to say equals and then point to that 13,000. We will then go from zero up in the credit direction by 13,000 to 13,000, put us back in balance here, meaning that we'll go to zero and net income will go up in the credit direction. There we have that. Now note that I'm recording debits and credits over here, not with two columns, just with one column. But the debits equal the credits in that the debits are positive and the credits are negative. Therefore, the debits minus the credits are zero. Over here, I'm recording them in a kind of more traditional fashion in that debits are on the left, credits are on the right. And I'm recording the credit as a negative number or bracketed number. Therefore, if I highlight both of these, I can say debits minus the credits equals zero. This function, this format of putting credits as negatives is very useful in practice. So that's why I'm going to introduce that I think a lot of textbooks don't give the benefit of telling people that because they think it might confuse plus and minus and debit and credit. But the idea, the reality of the world is that if you're learning debits and credits, you're going to get mixed up and have to differentiate, no matter what, between what a plus and minus is because we're going to be adding and subtracting debits and credits. So we're just, no matter what you do, you're going to have to figure out what the difference is between those two things. And it's very functional and reasonable and what worth doing to start using, if you're using software, which I highly recommend doing like Excel, to recognize that a credit can be used in this format and you'll see it oftentimes. So what that does for us here is it allows us to condense a worksheet like this from six columns that we would need if we had a separate debit and credit column for each to three columns. And so hopefully you can see kind of the functionality. It'll also allow us to shorten up some of these formulas and just do a quick calculation so that Excel will do all the work for us. Although we can see all the work being done by Excel as it's being done because we can see what the formulas are doing. So hopefully I convinced you on that. But in any case, net income, that means net income is increasing because that's a credit. So the credit is increasing that income. That's not a loss. That means the credits of revenue are greater than the debits of expenses. What's going to happen to the accounting equation? Well, we know that the assets went up, the green accounts went up with receivables. So that's going to increase. Nothing happened to the liabilities here. So liabilities will then remain the same. And then we see that equity is increasing. That's not a decrease. That's a credit direction and equity accounts have credits. Therefore it is increasing. We also know that it must be increasing because assets went up. Therefore the other side must as well go up. Next transaction, we're going to see what we have be receive cash on account for work performed in the past. So first question I would ask is, is cash affected? And in this case, we're going to say, yes, it is affected because it says received cash. Now, this is one question that people often get mixed up because it also says on account. And people often think, well, if it says on account, that typically means that cash is not affected, that something happened on account, meaning accounts receivable. And when we purchase something or when we make a sale on account, then that is the case because we're not getting cash and we're recording receivable as we did in the first journal entry. But when we, the second journal entry in the cycle of accounts receivable is affecting both cash and receivable because we got cash and we're paying off the receivable owed to us. So anytime you see the term received cash, however, we can really just start there without even knowing anything else that's going on. We're going, okay, we received cash, that's pretty clear language. Let's just record that first. There's 13,000 and we received cash for cash is an asset has a debit balance. We need to make it go up. We therefore will do the same thing to it, which in this case will be another debit. So I'm going to copy cash, we're going to right click on cash on E5, so E5 copy, we're going to put that in cell B8. So in cell B8, right click, paste 123. And yes, you can type in cash there. It's not a very long word. So I'm not too worried about misspelling that one. But I'm just going to copy and paste as much as possible. So it's going to be 13,000 in cell C8, no formatting, we're just going to type that in. And then I'm going to have a negative or credit 13,000 over here in D9. Now again, I could put a negative 13,000 or use a formula, which would be negative of this cell. So I'm going to take whatever's in that cell, I'm going to flip the sign on it. And that'll be it. So we got a debit and then our credit. Then we just need to know what the credit will be. If we got cash from a client or customer, you would think that we would then credit revenue. However, we have not yet received the, I mean, we already recorded the revenue up here. So the credit's not going to go to revenue. Instead, it's going to go to accounts receivable, because we have this money here, people owing us money that then needs to go down. This is really just tracking. You can think of this receivable later on. We'll talk about a subsidiary ledger, which will break this receivable down by customer. So you can think about this as kind of like the lump sum total of the list of accounts reporting who owes us money. And so people owe us 13,000. If we think of that as just one person, then we're going to say now they paid us 13,000. That then needs to go down. It's an asset. Assets have normal debit balances. We're going to make it go down by doing the opposite thing to it, which in this case is a credit. So I'm going to copy that right click, copy, going to paste that in cell B nine, there's B nine, right click, paste one, two, three. I'm then going to double click before the A I'm in the cell space three times. And there we have it. Now we'll go ahead and post this out. So we got cash first. Here's the debit to cash. I'm going to post that in the cash account. I'm going to in cell G five. So within cell G five equals and then pointing it to that 13,000. Then once I hit enter that zero will go up by 13,000 to 13,000. Then we have the accounts receivable here. Here's the accounts receivable on the trial balance. We're going to post it to G eight or G six. And I'm going to double click on it because there's something in it. So C five and the formula bars in it. So if I double click on it, I'll see that there it is. And then I'm going to go to the end of it and say plus and then point to this 13,000 credit. This is a debit balance account. That is a credit. Those are opposites. And therefore this balance will go down once we hit enter, put us back in balance. No effect on net income. So it's important to kind of see what's happening all across the board here. Assets went both up and down. So we think about our accounting equation. We could say, well, assets went up because cash went up. But assets also went down because receivables went down. And there's actually no net increase there. No net increase on liabilities, no net increase or decrease on the capital. So this is one of those kind of funny accounts where two assets happened from a debit and credit standpoint. It actually kind of makes more sense because we have a debit and a credit from an accounting equation standpoint. The net of these is zero, meaning assets liabilities or equity are not affected at all. Although we got cash as well, we didn't get any revenue in this second journal entry. We recorded revenue in the first journal entry because this is when we earned the revenue. This is when we received the cash. We didn't do any work on this date. We did the work on this date. So that's when we recorded under the revenue recognition principle. C says, performed work on account and invoiced the client. So we're going to say, is cash affected? We're going to say, no, we did work on account. So we invoice the client and typically that's going to be the driving document later on when we start talking about accounting software. It's an invoice that's going to drive this transaction. And we're going to say that cash isn't affected. Therefore, what did we receive? We got an IOU. We got an accounts receivable accounts receivable is an asset assets have debit balances. We need to make it go up. Therefore, we will do the same thing and debit accounts receivable. So I'm going to copy accounts receivable. I'm going to put that in cell B 11 right click and paste 123 put the dollar amount in C 11 that dollar amount being 650. We then know that we will credit something I could put in just a negative 650, but I'm going to start using that formula. So I'm going to say negative and then point to this 650 there. And that will pull over the number and flip the sign. Now we just need to know what this account will be. Why are people going to pay a $650 because we did work earned revenue and invoice the client expecting to be paid in the future. Therefore, the credit is going to go to revenue. So here's the revenue account. We're going to copy that. I'm going to paste that in B 12 right click, paste 123. Again, you could just type it in there, but I'm going to copy and paste is a bit faster, bit easier, bit easier to learn Excel double click on that cell. I'm going to indent three times on the space bar. And there we have that. Now if this form, if this worksheet weren't locked, you can go over here and you can indent using the home tab, alignment group and increase indentation. Now we knew we were going to credit revenue because we debited the receivable and we had to credit something. But if we think about it, right once again, double check revenue has a credit balance account. We need to make it go up because revenue always goes up and we got more revenue. And therefore we will do the same thing to it as its normal balance, its normal balance being a credit resulting in us crediting it in order to increase it. Now we'll post this, we're going to say receivables here is an asset. Here's the receivables account on the trial balance. We are going to record it in the blue section in column G. So we are on G five, double click on G five, we see the activity, I'm going to go to the end of this and say plus and then point to the 650. Now I know this formula is getting a bit complex. So you could just type in the formula as long as you have these in the exact same cells on the worksheet we are working with. Or you could if something gets messed up and you and this gets deleted, it's going to delete it. Then you're really just going to go back and point say equals and point to everything with the receivables including this has a receivable plus and then I'm going to point to this has a receivable plus and then this has a receivable and enter that brings the receivable back up to this 650 and it puts us out of balance by the 650 until we record the other side down here in the revenue or income again something is in it therefore we will double click on it. I'm going to go to the end of it and say plus and then point to the 650 over here that's going to increase our revenue put us back in balance and increase the net income. Remember that net income is calculated as revenue minus expenses revenue is increasing here nothing's happening to expenses that is not a loss for us it's representing the fact that revenue has a credit balance and went up in the credit direction credits being represented with brackets what happened to our accounting equation we know that assets went up because the accounts receivable went up so I'm going to say assets are increasing we know that nothing happened to liabilities nothing's happened to liabilities in our entire process so far so none and then we know that the equity two is increasing for a couple reasons one is that the revenue went up increasing equity anytime revenue goes up or net income goes up that will increase the total equity we also know that if assets went up on the left hand side of the equal sign then the equity two must be going up on the right hand side if equity is the account affected on that side going to transaction D perform work on account and invoice the client so same accounts again we're working on the same account that's receivable account so is cash affected we're going to say no we did work on account key term on account therefore we're going to say what did we receive and in this case we received an iou that iou being represented by the receivable account it's going to go up receivable account is a debit balance normal balance account the way to make any account go up is to do the same thing as its normal balance which in this case is another debit so i'm going to copy the receivable we're going to put that in b14 right click and paste 123 we'll then enter the dollar amount that dollar amount of 780 so it's going to be 780 i'm going to credit 780 as well so we have an equal number of debits and credits i'm going to do that with a formula by saying negative and point to that 780 and enter now we just need to know what that account will be and if we did work then we earn revenue under the revenue recognition principle and a cruel principle therefore we will recognize revenue revenue is here i'm going to copy that i'm going to paste that in cell b15 by right clicking and pasting 123 values only i'm then going to double click on the revenue and indent or space three times to have the indentation now we already know that we were going to credit revenue because we debited the receivable but let's think through it revenue has a normal credit balance revenue only goes up net income goes up and down however revenue only goes up and therefore we will increase revenue by doing the same thing to it that same thing is a credit okay so now we're going to post this we got a debit to the receivable so i'm going to scroll up to the receivable that's in cell g6 is where we need to post this something is in that cell therefore we will double click on that cell go to the end of it and say plus and then point to that 780 so these are the accounts of course now that are included in the accounts receivable and enter so now we are up to 1430 1430 which includes this 650 and this 780 then we'll record the second side which is the revenue side that is here so it's in g12 so i'm going to double click on g12 go to the end of it plus and then point to that 780 that will increase revenue put us back in balance increase net income so revenue goes up and net income goes up and we are back in balance here we will then take a look at the accounting equation it's going to be the same transaction here where accounts receivable went up accounts receivable is an asset therefore assets are increasing nothing happened to the liabilities so none and then we're going to say that equity is increasing so that's going to be an increase in equity and that's what we have so far next we have e says received cash on account for work performed in the past so first question is cash affected and we're going to say yes key term is received cash so cash is going to go up because we received it don't let this on account terminology throw you off we know that cash went up because we received it cash has a debit balance we're going to make it go up by doing the same thing to it which in this case would be another debit so i'm going to go ahead and copy cash we're going to put that on top it's on be 17 right click and paste 123 within the debit side we're going to put 650 and then we're going to credit something for 650 we could type in negative 650 or negative and then point to the 650 and that will bring the balance down now we just need to know what account will go with that and if we normally if we get paid we would say it should be possibly revenue but of course we had already recorded the revenue in the past up here in this account we recorded the 650 revenue and here we know that we are reducing the asset reducing the receivable reducing the amount that people owe us that account reflecting what people owe us is accounts receivable how do we know that with the term of the text because of that on account so we know that received cash means cash is affected we know on account means either accounts receivable or accounts payable is affected in this case receivable therefore the receivable here needs to go down so we're going to decrease the receivable i'm going to copy the accounts receivable i'm going to paste that here and be 18 right click paste 123 i'm going to double click before the a space bar three times and there we have that now we know we're going to credit the receivable because we debited cash we also want to think about it and say hmm accounts receivable is a debit balance account it needs to go down because it represents what money is owed to us by customers and after payment from customers then the amount owed to us will go down therefore we need to decrease the receivable receivables are assets assets have debit balance normal balances and we need to decrease it therefore we will do the opposite thing to it which is accredited so let's post this out now we got the cash first i'm going to go up to the cash account in cell g5 something's in it going to double click on it then go to the end plus scroll back down we're going to get to this 650 i know it's kind of in two different cells here but then enter and there we have it now if you want to just type it in there you can just type in equals c8 plus c18 but i highly recommend using formulas in this because it'll really help you go back and try to say hmm what's in the cell and you can just see by by looking at the highlighted cells here right and see what's in there that's really helpful we are now out of bounds by 650 we're going to go to the accounts receivable so here's accounts receivable in cell g6 something's in it therefore we will double click on it go to the end of it plus scroll down just a tab going to point to that 650 once we hit enter it's going to go back down the receivable put us back in balance and there we have it now there's still 780 in the receivable because we haven't received this amount that was recorded in d yet note that there's no impact on net income from this transaction because we had recorded the increase in revenue up here in transaction c transaction c the date of the time when the work was actually done well then go over here and we will record the increase or decrease cash is going up but accounts receivable is going down both assets therefore no effect on assets no effect on the um the liabilities and no effect on the equity so that's going to be like one of these weird transactions again where there's no effect on any of it is revenue recognize when we receive cash we're going to say uh no not necessarily it's recognized when we earn the revenue when we do the work is recognized as revenue recognize when we have earned it whether cash is and we're going to say yes so that's the revenue recognition principle that's one of the major points that we want to get from working and an account with accounts receivable or the receivable cycle note that if you were working with a company that was on a cash basis they wouldn't even have a receivable account and uh this receivable account it depends on the industry as to how important it is if you're in an industry that always gets cash at the same time work is done it may not be as important but many industries such as the legal industry or if you're a bookkeeper or in the industry that does work before they get paid and then they build the client to be paid at a later time we'll need this accrual account of receivable because this is the account that helps us track who owes us money we're going to back this account up later with a subsidiary ledger a list of clients who owe us money and so that's going to be very important depending on the type of industry that we are in