Hello and welcome everybody to the OKD working group meeting. I'm going to sub in and chair this one. If you have a chance, please enter your details in the HackMD file. And Timothy is noting, HackMD is laggy for me. Maybe we should archive this one and create a new empty one. How about if we do that after today's meeting for the next meeting? All right, Timothy. Now that I've got the agenda in this one. Yeah, it could be HackMD, could be the universe. So today we are supposed to have a talk on micro shift, but the guest speaker has not shown up yet. So I think what we're going to do is we're going to motor through the agenda and see if Sally O'Malley or one of the members of the micro shift team do show up. And while you're talking, I will. Hello, Neil. I will motor through Slack and see if I can find her online and make sure she has the details for getting in. Because Vadim is the one who invited her and she's there. So today we are going to just power through. I'm going to share my screen because it's easier for me. Difference between Jamie and myself when we chair. I would like to put the agenda up on the screen. Now I can see it and you get to see the rest of this. So Vadim is not here. If you, Christian is, you want to give a quick update on the OKD release on behalf of Vadim? Christian? Yeah. So Vadim told me that there isn't much news on 4.10. I think he didn't do a new release for 4.9 this weekend. I think due to the circumstances in Eastern Europe. So, yeah, no big updates from engineering side here. Yeah. Where is Vadim based out of? He's not in Ukraine. Is he? So he's based out of Brno, but he is from Belarus. Oh, well, so that makes it complicated. Everything is complicated over there right now. That's just pretty clear on that. So, yeah, definitely devastating what's happening there. Yeah, we have to be cognizant of that for all of our colleagues as we have offices and lots of Eastern European countries. So, arts go out to that part of the world. All right. So, and anyone else have anything to add on the OKD release? We've been playing with it or anything you want to add in? Otherwise, we'll move over to the F-Cos update. Timothy is typing furiously. May have to take yourself off mute, Timothy. Yeah, yeah, I'm, yes, I'm typing the agenda quickly in the height of D furiously, as you say. So, yes, so not much my side as compared to last two weeks ago. Essentially, you have a bunch of things in progress that will have come with the rebase to Fedora 36. So Fedora 36 is coming, the rebase for Fedora is next is coming along the beta, which should happen sometime mid-March. I'm correct. If I find the schedule again. Yes, the beta release is approximately mid-March. That's about it. So at this point, for example, we'll start making new Fedora next. This is based on the Fedora 36 beta, which will come with the Podman V4 change and the AP tables ineffable change by default. Those two major changes that we're tracking, we've added Docs page here. So the last link in the list of mail is a new page, new fresh new page that we've added to Fedora Chorus Docs, where you can track major changes that we have planned incoming in Fedora Chorus. So right now, those are the two main ones, but hopefully we'll have more. And there's also links and descriptions and how to test them on Fedora Chorus notes right now and when to see them happening and everything like that, the timelines. So yeah, and apart from that, we have all the Fedora 36 changes that we're tracking regularly. And I don't have anything as major right now. Thanks. Any questions for Timothy from the group? If not, we're going to zoom right along here. Not really a question, but I wonder, I think we're still on a Fedora 34 base in OKD right now. Is that correct? And OCP 4.10 is due this month as well. So we might, and I'm not sure if that's gonna be a problem, we might be skipping Fedora 35 then. Maybe we'll need to cut a release that is based on Fedora 35 before that can happen. But yeah, I'll definitely check back on that as well. And maybe Timothy, you know anything that might be causing problems? So I don't know what's the current status of the OKD machine noise content which release it is based on. I have to check that again. But for sure, that's one thing I wouldn't recommend trying is skipping a release. Like that's definitely something we don't test that much. Rocker is side of things because we have barrier releases for each release. So usually we don't skip releases. Like everybody goes through the flow where they don't skip major releases at least. Although we don't really think of the barrier releases. Those might happen within one Fedora major version as well, right? I don't think we've really thought of regarding those barrier releases. We just read because it's a recompose. It's not, we're not really using Fedora CoroS other than the, for the boot images. At least right now there definitely is a plan and there has been some movement on that too to not rebuild Fedora CoroS. And I think with the CoroS layering effort that's going on right now, that'll be much, much easier by then. But in general, we haven't really been looking at what is a barrier release and what do we have to, yeah, what do we have to look out for when kind of moving from one version to the next. So yeah. I'll definitely check back with Vadim and see. Might just make sense to kind of make one last 4.9 release on moving it to Fedora 35 and then when moving to OKD 4.10 also moving to Fedora 36. We'll see about that. We'll definitely come back here with some info on that. Can I say something to that? I hate, and I say that with that word on purpose, changing F-Cos versions within an OKD release. That breaks so many things and we've had so many issues with that. If we're gonna do 35, can we wait till 4.10? Please. I don't see any. That actually sounds like a, something screwed up on the other side of it because like the F-Cos people make great, take great pains to make sure that there isn't that much of an interface change between Fedora rebases. So look at 4.6, 4.7. When we change F-Cos from versions 32 to 32 to 34, it broke OKD bad. I don't see any reason why we should be updating F-Cos within an OKD release. Let me turn this question around. Is there a reason that OKD shouldn't validate that the upgrade procedure, that upgrading F-Cos releases should, is there any reason that they shouldn't be validating that that works? It's not OKD that break. It's all the stuff underneath it that. But it's all one piece. That's like the fundamental thing is that when you're, when OpenShift declares that it's going to do an upgrade, like, and I'm using the term OpenShift because I'm talking about both sides, both, you know, R-Cos and OKD, R-OCP and OKD, when OpenShift declares that it upgrades, it goes through and actually checks for updates for the operating system it runs on, as well as the software it's doing, and it attempts to do both together. And if there is event where either one fails, it's supposed to stop the whole thing. What you're telling me is that it is not stopping and it is still breaking. So what should be happening is that either A, there's a mix missing in the gap, in the test gap, there's a test gap somewhere, or B, something MCO is not, MCD is not doing something correctly to ensure that its settings persist as it upgrades the system. So, let me give you an example. So, FCOs changed what was a very, a very, very, very small setting, back in 34, 35, whenever it was. And it broke the fact of being able to do, they put a dot in domains, you know, for your Etsy host. That completely broke a whole bunch of stuff. That's not a test case with an OKD. It never was, and it probably will never will be. What I'm saying is that from my experience, and I've been in this now for quite a long time, so I think I have a right to say this, especially using OKD in production, that when we do an upgrade and we change FCOs version within the release of OKD, we are at big risk and we have seen it over and over again. My preference would be to either have a choice or not to do it and do an FCOs change when we do a new release of OKD. So I'm going to pause for a minute because I know you're on your cell phone and you can't see people raising their hands. So Christian wanted to say something to that, so let me just pause you. Yeah, I know this isn't on the agenda, but this is just one of those things that's giving me a hard turn. That's okay, I think it's a good topic. So go ahead, Christian. Yeah, I'd say we really have to think about OKD, not really in terms of OpenShift versus Fedora-Coroas life cycles because they aren't aligned. So we will always run into this issue and we do test the upgrades from one OKD release to the other. So it is one bundle that is upgraded and tested as a whole and it shouldn't really matter what version number it has. If the upgrade works, that would be our signal to say, this works, we can release it as is. And if we now move to 4.10 and then with that also upgrade to Fedora-35, by then Fedora-36 is out. And what are we going to do then? Are we going to wait until OKD 4.11 is out to move to Fedora-36? We have an OpenShift release, both OCP and OKD, roughly every three to four months. And we have a Fedora release every six months. So those life cycles just aren't aligned and we can't really say we move them along together and only upgrade one when we also upgrade the other. So at one point we'll have to say now we're moving within, let's say, OpenShift 4.10, we move from Fedora-35 packages to Fedora-36 packages without actually adding a minor version to the OKD version number. How long is an OKD release supported? I thought it was just until the next one. Well, yeah, it's a rolling release. We don't really do releases of the last minor version once we have the next out. So once we release 4.10, like only in emergency cases, but really it's a rolling release and there isn't any parallel streams like you'd have on the product side. So if Fedora is supported for a year after release, then I understand that the two don't release at the same time. But whenever a minor version, if we walk whatever F-cost is out at the time of an OKD minor release, that F-cost version should be supported and updated for the entire lifecycle of that minor of an OKD release. Am I missing something? Unfortunately, Fedora-CoreOS has opted out of the full Fedora lifecycle. Oh, OK. So that means that when they do the rebase, they stop supporting the old stream entirely. OK, now I understand. Sorry. All I can tell you is that from what I've seen in the last year, we have had many, and I've spent many hours debugging changes between F-costs. When there's nothing wrong with OKD, it's the underlying OS that has caused issues in the stability of OKD. It's not OKD, it's F-costs. That really sounds like MCD is not doing the right thing, because it should be forcing the settings and the environment to be correct on upgrade. It really mostly is things like a new network manager version or a system D version that has some change in API or some new feature or something that isn't properly supported, changes something in the output or something. That is what most of the time happens, because the OKD code, the cluster site, that is what we also release as the OCP product, which obviously is very, very well tested. And then bundling that together with F-costs, obviously, because the versions of those underlying packages are different in comparison to REL-CoreOS. That is what mostly creates problems for us. Well, how often is REL-CoreOS changing within a release other than patching? You're not doing the same problems that F-costs does, just slower. Timothy can probably speak to that. Yeah, the way to fix those things is not to sign and say we stick to specific release, because that's not all F-coreOS works. So right now, OKD uses the rebuild of F-coreOS stuck to specific versions. But so essentially, you're not using something that F-coreOS tested. So the way to have this work is to put the test forward. So put the test forward in F-coreOS itself, we release ahead of time. So right now, we are trying to prepare for the F-coreOS at six rebays. So right now would be a good time for OKD to take a look at F-coreOS 36 as a base and see if things breaks in there. So that when we rebays F-coreOS 36 unstable, then OKD can consume it and not break things. So that's the way things flow. And fortunately, we cannot maintain multiple branches of F-coreOS on several versions, because we have a different way of visualizing update streams. We don't lock ourselves on versions, we lock ourselves on update testing in next streams. That's how we do the F-coreOS releases. And that makes sense. But in this case, then I'm all for going forward, but don't do it with 4.9, do it with 4.10. 4.9 is nice and stable as far as I can see. If we go ahead and add a new F-coast and that all of a sudden becomes unstable, I mean, basically it makes OKD unsupportable and unusable. So I understand that right now. That's not the whole F-coreOS works. So if OKD actually know it's content, we want to stick with the specific release for OKD. That's up to OKD. That's up to Valium, that's up to those doing the releases. It's not my decision here. But you will have to know that essentially you will be using something that has not been tested for us by F-coreOS. That's not been tested by us. Essentially, the gap here is that we have a separate build system for the OKD machine OS content currently. And we rebuild that, which is essentially a coreOS assembler compose thing that makes Fedora coreOS itself. We do that again. We run that again for the OKD content. In the future, it's called the coreOS layering effort, I think. And that is going to enable us to actually reuse what the Fedora coreOS folks have built and just layer our stuff on top of that without rebuilding the whole thing. And with that, we can then close this gap in testing where we kind of run OKD end-to-end tests already when Fedora coreOS is built. And maybe even block Fedora coreOS releases on that. And that is currently the gap. We aren't currently doing continuous testing. We are doing discrete testing when upgrading. And that is the gap. And there is always going to be that's not great, obviously. And however, we do, obviously, test upgrades. We don't release without upgrades succeeding. And that is currently our signal, whether we can release or not. And that doesn't suffice in some cases, unfortunately. But, yeah, in the future with coreOS layering, this is going to be much better. And we can say we now hold back the move to Fedora 35 and do that with 4.10. But then we'll have to, within 4.10, move to Fedora 36. We don't have to align strictly with the Fedora coreOS release. As you can see, we're currently still on Fedora 34, I think, while Fedora 35 is already nearing its end of life. So that is fine. But at some point, we kind of have to move a Fedora major version within an OKD miner. We can do that with this release, 4.9. Or we can do it with the next. I don't really care. Like, we do have the upgrade testing. Maybe we'll wait and try to get in coreOS layering before. But that is probably not going to happen before. Certainly not going to happen before 4.11. We'll probably have to do it before. It's ideal. You also need a Fedora coreOS version with coreOS layering support before you do the 4.11 upgrade. Because otherwise, you can't stage it for the reprovisioning. So we would have to move to 36 before we actually start using the capability. Because otherwise, MCD can't use it. Because you create a weird bootstrap problem where you don't have the capability to actually use it. About that. Yeah. So I'm from the MCO team. We are highly cognizant of that. We are working on that at the moment. So just so everyone knows, because I'm not sure everyone actually knows this, coreOS layering is coming in Fedora coreOS 36. Because that was already an approved feature. And it is intended to land as part of F-COS 36. So that is coming. So what we're talking about here is essentially the situation right now is OK OpenShift rebuilds F-COS for OKD. And that means that the content set is not the same as what we released in Fedora coreOS. The configuration is not the same. The packages are not the same. The testing that Fedora coreOS has done is invalidated. And that means that either there are two real solutions to this. Either one, the F-COS plus OKD tests are run on the build of that F-COS, which is not happening today. Or two, we essentially stop doing upgrades until we are ready for that transition to coreOS layering. So unfortunately, as it is right now, running OKD end-to-end tests on the Fedora coreOS config repository isn't really possible because we've set up, or Vadim has set up the OKD OS builds on an external CI system, external build system. So we can't just trigger that very easily. However, when we move to coreOS layering, we will be able to actually build that OKD artifact, the OKD machine OS content container, as part of the Fedora coreOS builds as a layered product, as a layered artifact. And with that, once that is happening, we'll then have continuous testing for OKD as well. And yeah, obviously, since we do have a signal, it's not the best signal currently. We do test upgrades. So we make a new compose. And then, obviously, test is that old compose, the old version that is already released, upgradeable to that new one. Those end-to-end tests don't run on all the platforms currently. They just run on a few of them. And that might be the biggest gap we have. But I don't think we can wait and not push out a new release for a long time. You can decide not to upgrade, obviously. Right. Yeah, if I could run. Do you have the Fcause 36 stream available yet? No, not yet. We're trying to, the rebase is happening. I'm not talking about the rebase. I'm not talking about the rebase. I don't care about the rebase. Is there a new stream available now? The rebase to Fedora 36 for the next stream is happening alongside the beta release. So it will happen next week. We need much, much to, well, two weeks. So I want to just pause us for a minute. Bruce has had his hand up for a while. So Bruce, did you want to add into this? Well, no, I just figured I'd throw in my two cents, although many other people made my points, which is that in reality, we don't use Fcause releases, right? We build our own, which may be equivalent or not. And if you read the Fcause documentation, and then you read our documentation that says we use Fcause, you're totally misled, because that's not how it works at all. And maybe that causes issues, maybe not. And it is sort of like I went through all the stuff that John went through, maybe not as bad, but I can understand where he's coming from pretty totally. But in the last year or so, I have had lots of upgrade issues. None of them have been obviously Fcause related, unlike the year before that. So, and it could be that some of our problem is that we aren't following the Fcause release and upgrade cycle, OK? We have our own, and so we don't get whatever good testing the Fcause people are doing. But I mean, there does seem to be a plan involving the layering. I've been following that all the way along, too. And so the question is, how do we get from here to there? And what I thought might be useful is that we take a lot of this and open a discussion item where people put forward the problems that they've had and the issues that they had, and then that can all get collected in one place. And we can see which ones would be fixed by which methods and how we could actually go forward. So if I, if I, I'll just interrupt from it. So on maybe on John's behalf, because I know John's on a cell phone someplace, so I don't know if he's probably in a car. So the resolution to this sounds a bit to me, and I could be the naive one here, because I don't have it in production, that maybe we hold off on going to 35 until the 410 release. So the first 410 release goes out with 35. And then somewhere in the 410 release, we do a step up to 36. Is Christian, is that what you're suggesting might be the process? Maybe that makes sense. So we can at least be safe that 4.9 remains stable, and then within 4.10 we'll have to make that leap and kind of get along. But by then we will hopefully be able to migrate to CoroS layering. Maybe we can even back part that to Fedora 35, because essentially if that lands in the Fedora 35 packages, we will still be able to do our own compose of kind of OKDOS 35, including new changes that have then landed in RPMOS tree, the base. So John, the reason why I'm trying to articulate this is so that we don't go off and have that even create a 4.9 with 35 and we hold off. But me, if I'm hearing everybody right and I often don't, that still means you're gonna have the same issues someplace in the middle of 4.10. Is that correct? My feeling is that once we release a stable release, 4.9 was released with 34, it should stay with 34. And 4.10 may release with 35 or 36, I don't know. I think once we do a stable release of 4.10, I think we should stay with it. And then, because we are focused on OKD, that is what we're supposed to be building everything on. We're not a testing ground for FCOs. So once we have a stable release, I think we should be able to keep that. And then when we do our next release or next stable or next testing cycle, then we go to the next one because I tell you, if I do an upgrade and it breaks my production environment, and yes, I realize this is open source software is self-supported and everything else, but I'm also a member of this community, and we're trying to push this forward as a way of whatever you wanna call it, doing it for free or saving money or whatever. But when we make decisions that have the potential to make the system unstable going forward, I have an issue with that. That's what I'm hearing it loud and clear. Yeah, it's also worse on vSphere, I think, because vSphere isn't specifically tested by anybody or anything. So it's definitely the production people that are using vSphere. Well, like so, I can tell you straight up, based on my own experiences here, that VMware is explicitly not tested and supported in Fedora. Yeah. So that is a huge problem. Yeah. Timothy has his hand up. Yeah, clearly, OQD is not a testing ground for Fedora CoreS, okay? We are really sure that Fedora CoreS releases are stable and tested. So once those kind of changes go out, it's down to us knowing about them, because when we know about such breaking change, we make really damn sure that they don't happen or that folks get warned about. So that's definitely not how we work. So the thing is, we don't get to fix issues we don't know about. So we cannot fix stuff in Fedora CoreS if it's not reported to us. That's why we make damn sure that we have well-advanced, well-in-advanced of the releases that we have streams with new releases that folks can test on it. So if OQD wanna step up the testing, wanna step up the stability of the project, then you have to step in and test Fedora CoreS release beforehand, like up front at the very beginning where we do them, where we try, like right now we are looking at Fedora 36. So right now is the right time try OQD with Fedora 36 intent and try to make that happen. And so yeah, there's, if sticking to a specific version of Fedora is what OQD wants to do, then it's probably not going to be using strictly Fedora CoreS anymore because that's not all Fedora CoreS will be moving forward. So typically I understand exactly what you're saying, but let me give you an example of what happened. So there was a system de-change that was done by a person that basically broke resolve.com by replacing if you were booting from a kernel boot and you didn't have a domain name, they decided that all of a sudden, well, we're just gonna put a dot in there instead of using the default domain. Well, for people who are using OQD, that basically broke their systems and we had to come up with a fix in OQD to work around that. We opened up a ticket in Bugzilla and basically the folks who own that basically said, well, Tuft, we're not gonna fix it. So you're just gonna have to deal with it. And I have that supporting documentation if you wanna see it. So I understand what you're saying, but just because you say that, if we raise an issue, it's gonna be fixed, that's not necessarily a true statement. And it has made OQD unstable in various, and that's just one example. So that's why it just, I think the problem here is- Whenever I look at it, whenever I look like I have to do an upgrade, first thing I look at is whether, FGOS is changing. If FGOS is changing, I'm like, okay, I have to go through a whole different set of testing before I can upgrade. That's all I'm gonna say. I do agree that this is far from ideal, but I think in the future, when we have that OQD end-to-end testing as part of the Fedora-CoroS test matrix, then the Fedora-CoroS folks will get those signals from OQD beforehand. I think the problem here was that by the time that issue was reported, Fedora-CoroS had already been released and everything had already been in place. That makes it really hard to then kind of, after the fact, fix those things. Well, if you know before releasing both Fedora-CoroS and OQD, Fedora-CoroS would just kind of run a new OQD release as a test and end-to-end test that as part of the Fedora-CoroS test suite. They do that now with Kubernetes as well. Since recently, there have been upstream Kubernetes tests have been added and the same will be done with OQD so that there is, so the Fedora-CoroS folks do get that signal that they currently don't get. Because currently we don't have continuous testing, we only have the discrete testing every once in a while when there's a new release being cut. It's far from ideal, I do agree, but we will have to make that one jump to get to the Fedora-CoroS layering part and after that, hopefully this won't be an issue anymore but there is going to be that one time we'll have to do it now, unfortunately. So I'm going to keep coming back to this just because I don't want to eat. So I'm still going to put on the table. So for 4.9, just to give John Fortin maybe a break in his production that we hold off and keep 4.9 and 34 and then give with a lot of forewarning and maybe some testing in the 4.10 release when layering becomes available, we move from 35 to 36 but with a lot of explicit testing on the part of this group. And I think that might be, is there any issue with that approach? So there's a couple of problems. One 34 is about to EOL in a few months. So that's like, even if, so let's say we do this, right? Let's say we do this. That means that we will need to recompose a stable release ourselves on a semi-regular basis of Fcause. So we need to recompose updates and push those out. We are not doing that right now and we would have to start doing that. Now, if somebody is okay with doing that, then sure, that's fine. But regardless of whether that is or is not the thing we're going to do, we can't stay on 34 because 34 is going to EOL in three months. So we have to do an upgrade once at least. Now, the second part of this is, there is no reasonable conception I can think of that makes any, that I can think of that makes sense for John Fortin to get a response from someone in Fedor, especially one of the core maintainer folks that are working on core system stack stuff, to say, screw you, essentially. Like he said it much more nicely, but he's not going to do that. Essentially, like he said it much more nicely, but it's effectively screw you. The only reason I can think that is that Fcause people aren't actively communicating with these core stack parts to make sure that these things are influencing those changes. And I understand from what Timothy has said over the past few months, that this is something that they've been actively working on. And I know Dusty has kept me abreast of their efforts to improve communication here. I expect that that will improve. However, it is absolute lunacy from speaking as a Fedora member is absolute lunacy that we would have a situation where someone says, this is flat out broken and they tell you, you're just going to have to stop to figure it out yourself. That is absolutely unacceptable. I don't care. They didn't say that it was broken. They said that it's working as expected now and we're not going to fix it. I think that was the system defaults though, right? That wasn't Fedora Coroizer. Yeah, but that was coming through. I mean, whoever did it on Bugzilla basically said, we're not going to fix it, even though it broke specifically what we had identified. He said, this is a change, we're not going to fix it and you're going to have to come with a workaround which is why we had to come up with that weird script to fix Resolve, whatever file it was, Etsy Resolve D, if there was a dot. Okay, can I just come in and make a suggestion here? So to me, this is not a problem with what version of F-Coffee have or what we don't have. It's the fact that we're not finding the bug and we've talked a number of times, I've been in the community coming up to a year now and we've talked several times about trying to engage community to do better testing. It sounds like if we have a more robust testing on nightlies and especially as we take say a new update of Fedora, if we had testing on cross-platform for those nightlies, we would find issues like this are much better long before they actually hit the upgrade stream. So I think part of what we need to do is create a plan of how we can leverage the community to maximize the testing we do, both while we're in this stage and we're building our own F-Coffee, but then also as you go into the sort of the streams approach, we've had this a number of times and that's the way that we actually, I mean, we could screw up within the build. I mean, we're all human. It's not just an F-cost problem. We could screw up with an OCD. The more testing we can get done on the more platforms, the less likely it is that users, whether they're just hobbyists or production, it issues. So to me, this is where we should be focusing the effort and what can we do as a community to help Christian, to help Vadim and create a more robust test regime around what we're building. I think you put that very well, Brian, and I was just gonna say, and that's kind of why the, I keep coming back to this, to keep 4.9 with 34, we're going to 4.10 relatively soon and build in, start working on getting some more of that cross-platform testing by the community earlier so that when it comes to the next upgrade mid-OKD release, we have better testing and better communication with all of the upstream communities as well. We've given them feedback earlier on. But I think that might be at this juncture, the best relief we can give to those of you who have OKD 4.9 in production is acknowledges that we haven't got the community test plans in place or cross-platform testing and work on that in the next few months and work on our communication with F-cause, System D and everybody else. And that would be in raw hide or everything else, but acknowledge that we have to do that quickly within the 4.10 release. So I think I'm taking copious notes in the HackMD, but please add in HackMD, the anything else that might, and so Christian, I'm expecting that you're probably gonna be the one that goes back to Vadim and replays this a little bit. That I just won't, I don't want Vadim to think of doing a release with 4.9, 3.5 and do that extra work. And I think the best we can do right now is that and work on our communication plans. So that said, I'd like to circle back and bring a little closure and move to the next topic. Thank you, John, for bringing it up and saying it loud again and always being so diplomatic about it. I thought that was diplomatic or not, but. It was pretty diplomatic. It could have been a lot worse. I would have used stronger words, John. So by that definition, you're diplomatic. Yeah, there you go. So thank you, Brian, also for being eloquent. That brings us to the docs update. Brian, if you wanna give us a quick update on docs, I know I have another call with you right after this meeting. Yep, yeah. So I'm gonna keep this quick. We had our docs meeting last week. We are, we have got the code of conduct. It's down to me to actually get it live. I'm having some work done on my house. So chaos runs here. So I will get it done as soon as I can promise. So that's gonna go into the okd.io site. We've also agreed to shut down the community repo. That's got five documents in. I'm gonna move that content into the okd.io site. We're making plans to create a new git org and move the content there. And one of the things we're gonna do is start to reorg the okd main repo. That's where all our discussion and our issues are. The idea is that we're gonna pull documentation out of that repo. We're gonna do it in a series of pull requests and anything that's document worthy and all documentation, community documentation that we write will live in okd.io. Obviously the product document that's in line with the OCP documentation lives on docs.okd.io. So the idea is we wanna clean up the okd repo before we actually generate the new org. So what we put in the new org is nice and neat and clean. So that'll basically be the okd repo for issues and discussions. With a front read me, which is just a pointer to where other stuff lives. And then the okd.io will be the source of all our community documentation. What else did we discuss? We now have somebody who volunteered to be our security liaison and Jamie is working with them to actually get some introduction right up so we can actually get that published. And I think that was about all we discussed. We did talk about the new operator catalog and anybody that wants to contribute that discussion use Christian's issue that's in the okd.io, the okd repo, sorry. So Christian created a repo of what operators we want to see. So that's where we should go for the discussion on there. And I believe soon there will be some discussions that'll be reported back on that issue. And that's all I have from the docs meeting. And that person who is the security person is Mohamed who is on the call right now. And Mohamed, did you want to make a comment? Yep, you might be on mute Mohamed. Oh, he didn't get a contact from Jamie. Because Jamie is on vacation in Florida this week and good on him. So Mohamed expect something next week. And if you don't hear, come to the docs meeting and we will hijack that and make sure you get what you need. Okay, thanks. All right, let's see. I'm going to try and share my screen again here and walk through any issues that we should do quickly. Because what do we got for time left? We got 10 minutes, so good on us. The issues, open issues. I know Charo, update OKDBase CRD build. Charo had brought up the issue in Slack somewhere over the past week about not continuing doing CRC builds. I'm not sure if that's exactly what this issue is about. But I wanted to mention that on this one to see he's right now, the same person he's right now, the sole volunteer on the CRC build process. We were supposed to get a talk on micro shift and Charo's not here. So I'm going to let you guys continue this conversation. It's not that it's dead. It's that the community has an investment as he puts here. So just so that's on people's radar, if you have, I have bandwidth and want CRC builds, we need volunteers. And so reach out to Charo so that he's not the only one doing that, because I think from the conversation, he's doing them, but he's not using it. So he's gone to snow. I think the conversation was that CRC is too big to be useful by a lot of people. And we were hoping the micro shift an OCD version of micro shift might be a better option. So I think that's where we were hoping to have that conversation. So we can make the decision to keep supporting CRC or actually formally place it with a micro shift. At the top of this deck, the OCD is the slides for micro shift. I thought someone was going to give a presentation on that today, but the slides are there. My understanding is that micro shift is built with OCD in mind. So I think we already have that. It's just whether people are using it. I think a few people have said that they've played with it a bit. I like it conceptually, I have not played with it. So I'm going to try and get Sally or one of the two folks who are in Spain who are leads on that to show up to the next meeting to give a presentation on that. But that was that issue. I think that was the major new thing on the issues list. And other than the operator wish list, which is the perpetual thing on the wish list issue. And if there's any updates to that, Christian, I don't think there's an update. And then there's the discussions and idea stuff. And the online assisted installer service for OCD was the latest one that I saw. And that's two weeks old too. And I think that's something that Vadim has been working on if I'm correct, Christian. And he's not here right now, but if you want to pile on to that. Sorry, could you repeat that? I was- You were distracted, never get distracted in no KD meeting. I'm just going to share my screen again. I do have an update to share though. So I've just chatted with Vadim and he will keep OCD 4.9 at Fedora 34. And 4.10 will be moving to 35. And then we'll have to figure out whether we will either do the move to 36 within 4.10 or we skip a Fedora major sometime later on. All right, cool. Those are kind of the two options. Maybe it might make sense to just skip a Fedora release. And well, we'll see about that. But I'll definitely, for now, 4.9 will stay on 34, 4.10 will move to 35. Okay, postpone the pain. Yeah, thanks for doing that. That's a worthy distraction. And I'm just looking at the discussion list. This is the most recent one, the online assisted installer service for OCD. I think that was something that Vadim was also... Right, so it is possible to kind of deploy that. And we have a kind of proof of concept for running OCD or installing OCD with the assisted installer. And there is also the assisted installer is kind of two pieces. It's an agent that runs and it's also a web service that kind of generates an image for you and the images that are then installed call back to that web service and you'll kind of get a status update and as a visual on that website. And that is kind of in the works, but we're not sure and that is, it's even an open shift, it's just a tech preview and we're not sure whether that is going to be productized at all. So we might not go through that, but we're definitely focusing on this agent driven install, which will make it much easier to install open shift in general and OCD obviously as well, on any platform without having to do too much integration work that way. So that is a focus of ours having this agent driven install whether we need the web service part of it or just make it kind of a CLI thing. We don't really know yet. So I would just say stay tuned and watch that issue if you're interested in that. Is there anything else in the discussion or the issues list that people wanna raise and discuss today? We get about four minutes left in our hour. Sure, yeah, I wanted to point out that we have the discussion about what the purpose of our install guides are and how kind of what format they should be in. I've raised it. I haven't gotten any feedback from anybody yet who's previously participated in the guide. Brian and Jamie, I think are here. Jamie is on vacation. Brian is here. Can you throw the discussion URL into the chat just for me? Yeah, it's in tasks right now. I'll ask to get in the chat. So I don't know if this is a case of everybody likes my proposal so nobody felt the need to say anything or people haven't had a chance to read it yet. I'm not sure how long to go without just saying, okay, nobody's objected. So the thing I wrote up is the thing we're doing. Right. I totally missed that. I was out with COVID during that time. So I do think, I think I like that. And most importantly, I'd like all the guides to be to share one common format. So it's kind of clear how to add another one and what the actual purpose of each guide is which should be the same purpose platform, I'd say. Yeah, I do, I've just had a very quick look, but I'll review it a bit more thoroughly in a bit. Thank you, and I hope you're feeling better. Yeah, I had three shots and it still hit me pretty hard, but yeah, definitely better now, thank you. All right. All right, anything else anyone wants to bring up in these final few minutes? Otherwise, thank you all for participating today. I really appreciate the feedback and thanks for stepping up there, Christian, and doing the back door discussion with Vadim. So we got that update in this week. There is a docs meeting next week on Tuesday. And the other thing, well, under the docs kind of thing is we're looking at staying with MakeDocs, staying with okd.io, but using a bit of outside contractor help to do a refresh of the okd.io site. So it's a little more, you know, perky or websitey or whatever it is. We have some dollars in an account somewhere that I need to spend. So Brian and I are gonna meet with Brandon right after this call and discuss that. So we may be bringing back a few wireframes and suggestions for things to make it look a little bit better too. So that might help in the usability of the site. So with that, I'm gonna let you all go back to your day jobs and thank you all again for all of your support and talk to you all soon. Thanks everybody. Take care. Thanks Timothy.


The biggest problems in my opinion when it comes to the conference on the future of Europe is that we're here, we talk for several months, and at the end we end up nowhere. This, my dear friends, is the biggest mistake and the biggest threat for democracy and for the European Union. So in my opinion, we need to start getting into results. I remind you that in 40, 40 days, 45 days from now, this conference will end. So we need a paper with proposals to start working on something concrete. And of course we are all here to make our suggestions, change things, add things, take out things if we don't want them, but we need to have something concrete. You know one of the problems of Europe is too much talking. Let's do some work here. That's my opinion, and I think that this is the reason why regions and cities welcome your approach on creating this document. So thank you so much for this concentration that I tried.


is a debate on motion 11347 in the name of Fiona Hyslop and Scotland's support for the UNESCO convention for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. Can I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons? I call on Fiona Hyslop to speak to you and move the motion up to seven minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Thank you and I move the motion in my name. The issue of intangible cultural heritage lies at the very heart of who we are as individuals and as members of a healthy, vibrant society, and it's also timely that we are discussing this important issue in 2018, which is the European Year of Cultural Heritage. Standing here in this building, redolent with its own stories, we are surrounded by the tangible remains of our nation's great cultural heritage, Horace Palace, Edinburgh Castle, the buildings and monuments of Carton Hill to name but a few. Let us reflect for a moment on these buildings. How many of us can really say that what resonates most is the architecture, the construction techniques, the types of stone? They are important, of course, but the attraction of these buildings is just as much to do with what happened in those buildings—the stories behind the construction, the people that stayed in them and the things that they did. Our heritage professionals are well aware of this already. When we're touring Hollywood Palace, we're invited to consider the fate of David Ritzio allegedly at the hands of Lord Darnley, not just the fine architectural details such as the Roman Doric columns and the octango cupulae of the entry gateway. Cultural heritage is not just about the physical aspects of culture, historical artefacts and building. It is also the traditions, the representations, the practices or living expressions of groups and communities. These could be enormously wide-ranging, encompassing oral traditions, performing arts and traditional crafts. The intangible aspects of our cultural heritage are hugely important. A living form of heritage, which is continuously recreated, evolving as communities adapt their practices and traditions in response to their environment, is inclusive, representative and community-based and helps to bond societies together. I believe that, to be able to move forward as a nation, we must both acknowledge our roots and recognise the value of that intangible cultural heritage in defining and shaping our national identity, our sense of belonging and continuity as individuals and communities. The success of the fish and the gill is an excellent example of that for Gaelic song, story and tradition. The intangible is a critical part of how we experience our heritage, binding and collecting us to our past, present and future. It's a vital importance that we nurture that legacy. One of the key issues is the risk of losing our traditions and collective memory. Education is key to transmitting intangible cultural heritage practices to our children and young people, and we must continue to encourage communities and individuals within those communities to become active participants in that process. The core aim of the UNESCO convention is to safeguard the intangible cultural heritage as an international, national and local level. We already do much in Scotland to support those overarching aims. Intangible cultural heritage is fully embedded in our place in time, the historic environment strategy for Scotland, and that defines the historic environment as a combination of physical things, the tangible and those aspects that we cannot see—stories, traditions and concepts, the intangible. Similarly, intangible cultural heritage permits all of the work undertaken by Historic Environment Scotland. As the lead public body for the historic environment sector in Scotland, it helps not only to curate our heritage but to tell the stories associated with that heritage. Those activities include interpretations of all kinds associated with our properties and care, such as costume guides, audio guides, online interpretation and educational materials and events and interpretation sites. They also operate Scotland's urban past projects, where communities are actively recording and creating intangible cultural heritage. I would also like to take the opportunity to commend Museums and Gallery Scotland for its work in the area of intangible cultural heritage. That organisation became involved in this area following requests for development support by Scotland's museums and galleries. In 2007, Museums and Gallery Scotland commissioned Edinburgh Napier University to scope intangible cultural heritage in Scotland, and as a result, it developed a wiki site to capture examples of intangible cultural heritage in Scotland. That site provides a place to hold information about cultural practices that happen in our communities. It is universally accessible when everyone is invited to add content. That will help to build a dynamic inventory of Scotland's intangible cultural heritage practices. The site includes hugely diverse entries from the Merriamys Ffair in Irvine to the Burryman Ffair of South Queensbury, from the extraordinary Stonehaven Fireball Festival to the stories, traditions, myths and legends that are part of the living heritage of our common writings. The 2003 UNESCO convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage provides a framework for working in this area. Safeguarding means ensuring the viability of the intangible cultural heritage, including identifying, protecting and promoting as well as revitalising it. To date, 175 states from across the globe have joined the convention. Indeed, it is the fastest-growing UNESCO convention. Here in Europe, 27 states from within the European Union have signed up to the convention, with the United Kingdom's non-ratification of the convention, where it is clearly out of step not only with Europe but with the world, where other Governments fully recognise and acknowledge the importance of intangible cultural heritage. Critically and not ratifying the convention, UK examples of intangible cultural heritage are not eligible to be nominated for UNESCO for inclusion in their representative list. In that, we are missing out. We have many examples of intangible cultural heritage. For example, Harris Tweed, Paisley Patton and the Clarksack, the list is endless. In my view, many are worthy of formal recognition and safeguarding. I consider this. In December 2017, UNESCO gave special status to the Irish Illian Pipes, which were added to the organisation's representative list of the intangible cultural heritage of humanity. As many commentators noted at the time, the Sackleid not only raised awareness of the pipes as an aspect of Ireland's rich cultural heritage, but also the importance of protecting and sharing it. Of course, I very much welcome this move and congratulate our Irish friends on the inclusion of the pipes on the list, but surely Scottish piping and our contribution to the world culture through piping is worthy of recognition. It is my view that, in order to fully realise the potential for intangible cultural heritage, to further engage communities and tackle equalities to help us to build on the excellent work that is already underway in Scotland, the UK Government must ratify the convention. The hate convention that is referred to in the amendment is hugely important. Many of us have been calling for many years for the UK to ratify and it is welcome that it has now legislated, but it has taken 13 years to legislate from the UK announcing its intention to ratify in 2004. Being late to the gate with the hate convention cannot be used as an excuse not to sign up to the convention for the safeguarding of intangible heritage. I urge members to make a clear call for the UK to sign up to the convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage and encourage them in a positive and encouraging way to do so with a single positive statement from this Parliament with our responsibility for culture and heritage. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I call on Rachel Hamilton to speak to her and move amendment 11347.1 for up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome this debate and Fiona Hyslop will be pleased to know that this side of the benches will support the Government's motion. My amendment also seeks to add a bit of meat to the bones, because intangible cultural heritage is not something that many folk have heard of, but when explained, its purpose clearly resonates through Scottish life and beyond. I hope that other benches recognise that the Scottish Conservatives agree that the UK Government should ratify the convention for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage, and within our motion our amendment seeks to communicate the fact that the convention is not being ratified yet, but which, of course, we hope it is, it does not mean that work has not been done on this front. The UK Government has ratified a number of other UN conventions to protect cultural heritage. Those include the 1972 World Heritage Convention, the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, the 1984 convention concerning the protection of world cultural and natural heritage, and the 1954 convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict with regulations for the execution of the convention. Furthermore, DCMS has also signalled plans to review whether the UK should ratify the 2001 UNESCO convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. Deputy Presiding Officer, the UK not being part of the 2003 convention has not prevented Museum and Gallery Scotland from becoming the first UK organisation to be accredited as an expert NGO adviser to UNESCO on the 2003 UNESCO convention for the safeguarding of ICH. That said, there are never enough opportunities to talk about Scotland's culture. There are never enough opportunities because our culture is so rich and vibrant and diverse. No two places are the same, from Highlands to the Scottish Borders and everywhere in between. There is a wealth of cultural experiences on offer found in dance, food, music, theatre and storytelling. None more so than the Scottish Borders, which I represent. The multiple, vibrant and culturally unique villages and towns found in, for example, the coastal town of Imouth to the common ridings in Selkirk and Hoik, and the civic weeks in Coldstream and Kelso, and the countless other events such as the Borders Book Festival, arts festivals and agricultural shows. The real pleasure of all those events is the enjoyment that each event brings to families of those respective communities. Those rich cultural traditions will be passed down through generations, and that is in itself a form of protection, although it is unclear if intergenerational methods of communication are compatible. With the passing down of traditions, what is also passed down is attitudes and values, civic weeks and common ridings that teach us important values, values of inclusivity and acceptance and pride in Scotland's towns and their histories. It is fundamentally important to teach those ideals from a very early age and to ingrain them within our communities. Civic weeks have young people at its core, laddies and lassies appointed as guardians of rich tradition. In this year of young people, it is crucial to acknowledge the connection that tradition has to young people, and too often there is a misconception that traditions and the like are only for older persons, not for young persons. However, it is the very involvement of young people in our traditions that is crucial to their longevity, the role that laddies and lassies play in civic weeks in the Scottish Borders demonstrates that perfectly, for the most important role is trusted to that young person, involving everyone from all ages in a week full of cultural and historical significance. The same is true, of course, for agricultural shows, where everybody gets involved to get that rosette or that trophy. Again, taking part in an experience that teaches hard work, respect and pride. Culture must remain accessible to everyone and enjoyed by everyone. That can be done as simply as with food. What better than sharing one's culture with food? A delicious fish supper reminds us all of Scottish Haddock and our rich fishing industries.  In a passionate pursuit to add Selkirk Bannock to be part of the ICH register, it seemed that all I had to do was sign up to be a wiki contributor. It is something that perhaps the cabinet secretary might like to look at, because I think that to preserve some of our traditions that are being passed down from older generations might be using it in an online format, might be a little bit a step too far, particularly for those generations that have traditions where digital technology doesn't enter their lives. I'm pleased that—yes, I will. I thank the member for giving way. Will she agree that it is more difficult to convince a younger generation to take up traditions? I'm thinking here of, in my own constituency, the Gaelic language whenever politicians or people in the media deprecate that language in the media. Rachael Hamilton Well, I think what Kate Forbes is going to be doing later while we've all got our headphones here and to make her speech in the Gaelic language is going to be do wonders to promote that. I heard Ms Forbes on GMS this morning promoting the language most eloquently. Yes, I do agree with Alistair Allen that it is difficult to get young people to be involved in traditions, but my example about the common ridings in the borders is an absolute brilliant example because they enjoy it so much and it is just such a pride for them. I welcome the debate and support efforts to protect our culture. I, like others, hope to see the convention as ratified soon, but in the meantime I encourage and welcome continuing efforts to promote those local traditions, such as common ridings, civic weeks in the Scottish borders and, of course, food. I move the amendment in my name. I call Clare Baker for up to five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome this afternoon's debate, which gives us an opportunity to highlight the rich intangible cultural heritage of Scotland and consider the merits of ratifying the UNESCO convention for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. Recognising, valuing, preserving and celebrating an intangible cultural heritage is important. I have raised before the evidence from the household survey, which points towards a growing cultural gap that is largely linked to income. People living in our more deprived areas are less likely to engage in, participate in and produce our country's cultural activity. The engagement phase of the Scottish Government's cultural strategy for Scotland was published yesterday and it also highlighted the growing feeling within the sector that this inequality exists with regard to access and participation, some questioning if the cultural establishment is out of touch with the community and their particular issues, interests and priorities. That should be at the forefront of our thinking on culture and we should consider how we encourage and support greater equality and diversity. While I recognise the value of the household survey measurements and I wish to see the identified cultural gap close, the value of intangible cultural heritage should be recognised for what it, often by its very nature, can involve. It is often community driven. Those are skills and expressions that have often been passed from generation to generation. Its value, I would argue, has not always been recognised, which means that it has not always had the support of the authorities but has been more organic and grassroots focused. This Parliament has played a part in providing a greater focus for recognising the value of intangible cultural heritage. Intangible cultural heritage helps us to share the experiences of the many communities that make up our country today and of our diverse and shared heritage. It can be democratising and it has an emotional connection to people and makes them feel that they belong to something. There is evidence to show that it can reach and engage individuals and communities that can often be hard to reach. I met with the heritage lottery fund this week and I was pleased to hear that it provides grants and support to intangible cultural heritage, recognising the value and diversity of the heritage of local and national cultures and traditions, of languages and dialects and of people's experiences and memories. Research done by the heritage lottery fund identified that young people engage more when the activity or the project is about intangible cultural heritage. The fund also provides access to resources for grassroots community groups, taking forward work in that area. While in Scotland we also benefit from support from museums and galleries Scotland, as other members have recognised, there is little formal infrastructure in the UK that is linked to intangible heritage. Local authorities can also be very supportive of cultural community events but their budgets are under increasing pressure to focus on other front-line services. What would involvement in the convention bring to this picture? Crucially, the convention recognises the social and economic value of intangible cultural heritage as well as the risk for cultural elements that could disappear without help. The convention recognises heritable tangible objects such as monuments or collections and also immaterial objects such as oral traditions, festival events and traditional knowledge. Given my earlier comments about the weakness and formal support and acknowledgement of intangible cultural heritage across the UK, membership of the convention means that the UK would have two obligations. First, to take necessary measures to safeguard intangible cultural heritage and second, to identify and define with community and expert involvement the elements of ICH.  The cabinet secretary mentioned the work already undertaken by Napier University and also developed action plans for safeguarding the culture of the country. Not being part of the convention does not stop a country doing any of that. However, being a member of the convention means that you can nominate heritage for inclusion in the convention lists. It is fascinating to look at the two lists of the convention. A committee meets annulate to decide if something should be included on the at-risk list, the list of urgent safeguarding or on the representative list. Currently, on the at-risk list is the whistled language from Turkey, and the representative list includes a host of craft, celebration days, languages and traditions. The lists serve the purpose of raising awareness of demonstrating diversity, but they also offer the possibility of receiving UNESCO support towards its safeguarding. One way to work in partnership with other countries to support and protect intangible cultural heritage is to ratify the convention, and 176 countries have ratified, approved or accepted the convention since its inception in 2003. I would contest that our intangible cultural heritage in Scotland is in a fairly healthy state. Our heritage is a living piece of history that is constantly evolving and being recreated within our communities. It expresses a sense of identity and belonging, and parts of it are thriving throughout Scotland. If the UK were to ratify the convention, it would provide the opportunity to collectively identify and protect, as well as enabling us to raise awareness and seek support on an international stage. We now move to the open debate. The speeches are up to four minutes. I call Ash Denham to be followed by Maurice Corry. I am obligated at this point to remind the chamber that I am the PLO for the Cabinet Secretary for Culture. UNESCO, as we have heard, provides international recognition of nation's heritage and culture. It celebrates this diversity and reminds us of the responsibility that we have to safeguard our heritage. What we consider today is not our nation's natural beauty, our famed artists or our influential writers, but the traditions and rituals of Scottish communities that have influenced and nurtured our culture over hundreds of years and the practices that have shaped our identity as a nation. The Scottish Government recognises the value of intangible culture. We have heard today some of the important ways that it is already safeguarded here in Scotland. However, the UK Government's failure to ratify the UNESCO convention means that Scotland's world-renowned culture misses out on some of the international recognition that other cultures are able to secure. There is recognition for violin makers in Italy, beer brewing in Belgium, cowbell crafting in Portugal and even bagpipe culture in Slovakia. The fact that Scotland is unable to put forward our traditions and practices to be considered for inclusion on to the international representative list I think really sells Scotland's culture short. With summer swiftly approaching, I thought that I would take the opportunity to draw attention to a couple of Scottish seasonal practices. The halfway point between the spring equinox and the summer solstice towards the end of April was held by the Celtic people of Scotland to be a particularly special time of year, possessing regenerative powers and bestowing springtime fertility. They celebrated this transition at the ancient Gallic festival of Beltane, where they would drive cattle through bonfires, bestowing protective powers over them before they were led to their summer pastures. That ritual was practised up until about the 19th century, a period of over a thousand years. Equally significant was the first water of Beltane that was supposed to hold especially potent powers. To wash oneself in it was supposed to bring health and happiness and so established the tradition of washing oneself in the May day due. I am pleased to report that my constituency holds Scotland's most famous location for this tradition, which is Arthur Seat. For hundreds of years, Scots have climbed Arthur's Seat to catch the sunrise and to wash themselves in the due in the hope that it will bestow everlasting youth. I must admit that at this point that I am quite tempted. While I am unsure of the mythical powers of the May day due, I am certain of the lasting powers of those Celtic traditions. It is incredible that, hundreds of years after the original practice, we still celebrate the coming of the summer months here in Scotland. If you wish, you can join those celebrating Beltane Festival on Calton Hill in between the flames, or you can take a dawn stroll to the top of Arthur's Seat to wash your face in the due. While the rituals have evolved and adapted—I am not sure if cows are still welcome on Calton Hill—we can see the way in which Celtic traditions still influences our modern culture. It is for this reason that the Scottish Government is quite right to acknowledge and celebrate the central importance of intangible cultural heritage to Scottish culture. It is for this reason that I am very happy to support this motion. I know that the Scottish Government has repeatedly called on the UK Government to ratify the UNESCO convention, but I hope that it will take note of this debate here today in the Scottish Parliament and the calls that are coming from Scotland from across the many political parties that are represented here today and that the UK Government will listen to it. It will consider ratifying it as soon as possible. I welcome the opportunity to speak today in this debate. Preserving our cultural heritage is something that we need to hold in high regard because of the great pride that we take in our oldest customs and traditions. By preserving our heritage, we can maintain the diversity among our communities and highlight traditions that have enriched our cultures throughout our history. Usually, when we think of intangible cultural heritage, we think of things like language, customs and tradition, but it spans far beyond. Artifacts, objects and instruments are the physical pieces of intangible cultural heritage that can most easily be protected through institutions like museums. Other sorts of intangible cultural heritage are a bit harder to protect. Maintaining traditions and events can be a challenge in the 21st century. It requires the public to remain engaged and interested in the tradition, as well as ensuring that it will be funded. Although the UK Government has not ratified the 2003 convention, museums and gallery Scotland has been working hard towards achieving the goals set out in the convention, and museums and gallery Scotland has achieved that through the creation of a log of traditions. That log includes events, foods, craft and many other traditions that are practising Scotland. I firmly believe that Highland games are a crucial facet of our heritage and that needs protection. The games can be traced back to the 14th century, with the series Games and Fife, which will please Willie Rennie. Back then, the games were used as a means to establish who were the strongest and bravest of the soldiers in Scotland and to show off artistic and musical talents, and since then the games have become an integral part of the Scottish cultural scene recognised around the world. I welcome today, in the public gallery, Don Campbell from the Scottish Highland Games Association and also Robert McIntyre, chairman of the Rose and East Peninsula Highland Games in my west Scotland region.  Today, the games continue each year, keeping up traditional events such as Shotput and Cabotoss, along with artistic impressions, expressions through traditional music and dance, with great competitions that attract participants of all ages. Each year, the games draw thousands of visitors to Scotland contributing to local economies and spreading knowledge of our culture. The games allow us to share this heritage to both the global and local audience. Keeping the games running is a struggle for many smaller communities, including one in my region in which I have spoken before. Each year, the games are struggling more and more to meet the financial demands of running the games. For many communities, the hiding games are the biggest event of the year and attract the most visitors to the area, so it is vital that the small communities and the cold communities of the games go on. As most are volunteer run events, the ability to access sponsorship and funding is dependent particularly on their knowledge. Many Highland Games organisers struggle to access funding and to support, so I would be interested to hear from the cabinet secretary about how we can better support the Highland Games organisers. The games are so important to Scottish culture as a whole that I would argue that the importance that they have to each individual community is critical in defining each community and in stimulating a robust local economy, as my colleague Rachel Hamilton referred to about the borders. By involving several levels of public sector, from Government to Visit Scotland to Scottish Athletics, there is much potential to empower small communities to host their Highland Games. In conclusion, the Highland Games today provides us with a chance to protect our intangible cultural heritage that surpasses the conservation of old pieces of art in a museum. The Highland Games gives us a way to continue a tradition that has been in our culture for centuries and allows us to pay respect to our past, so we must do what we can to support and protect them in the future. I am very happy to participate in the debate. It is said that every day is a school day, and I, for one, have already learned a great deal more about what, in fact, is the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage than I did before the beginning of the debate, but I was starting to have to confess from a very low base. It seems to me that there is a simple division in the chamber that we endorse this convention now or we endorse it later, and that does not really feel to me as if there is a huge amount of disagreement and I think that there is a huge amount that we can agree on. Rachel Finlay. I have taken the intervention. So far, we have heard from three sides of the benches, but it seems that we are supportive of getting the UK Government to hurry up and ratify the convention, so I am not sure where that information is coming from. Johann Lamont. I was misreading the motion that said that you want to do certain things before you endorse it. It does not matter. I am absolutely convinced and committed to the idea of endorsing the convention, but we also go beyond that and try to understand if we want to support our intolerable cultural heritage, what challenges that represent for us beyond simply endorsing the convention itself. I just want to make some observations. I do not pretend to be any kind of expert in this. It is almost like the political equivalent of thinking aloud, so forgive me for that, but some observations I might have about this process. I think that, first of all, there needs to be an understanding of what is intangible. For me, Gaelic is not intangible. The Gaelic language is all too tangible, and the policy choices that resulted in my generation losing the language were entirely tangible. I think that we have to be careful about that. I was the first person to speak in the debate in the chamber in the language of my forebears and Gaelic, and I made the point then about the way in which choices have been made that meant that all too many, certainly of my generation, lost the language. I would support initiatives across Government that actually revive the Gaelic language. Perhaps what we are seeking here is that we open up an understanding and a value of culture and stop defining the intangible against it. There is a mainstream culture and everything else is intangible. I do not think that that is what is intended, but I think that it does mean that we should be challenging our notion of what Scottish culture is and recognise just how diverse it is. I also would caution against defining too tightly what intangible culture is. There is the joy of the vast range of cultural experiences, the diversity of poetry, song and music dance across our communities, and trying to put it in a box in my view can become too productive. We know what it is, but let us not spend too long killing ourselves with definitions. I can think of many examples of the riches of the culture into which I was born, a culture of humour, of understanding the elements, of the daily battle of working against the elements and shaped by the land on which people worked. That shaped the people of that land, a culture of Senechus, of storytelling, of cailing, but of course the people did not think that they were taking part in it. They were simply living it, and I think that that is the way that we should see it. I recall as a child how far away that Gaelic culture that I was born into thriving in the fireside by the fireside in Anderson and Glasgow, alive at the hearth in my family's croft, how far that life felt from what was presented as a Gaelic culture through the television. How far, even the mod, the Gaelic institutions felt from the cultural experience that we had. I congratulate, I know that the minister said this, the face movement for making live and visible my experience of the Gaelic language and culture and music and drama and song that has now been the opportunity for a younger generation that perhaps we were denied. In conclusion, I want to think about the way in which we capture our own history, our oral traditions, across a whole range of cultures. The Edinburgh University's Scottish studies department did a wonderful little project capturing the voices of people from Tyri in the 80s. I am sure that that is replicated in other places. We needed to ensure that they were investing in those little projects, the storytelling project in the south-west of Glasgow, and another example of capturing that range of voices in diversity. Therefore, in supporting the convention, there should be a commitment to ensuring that the little bits of funding, the little bits of work that can make a massive difference in celebrating the vast range of cultures across this country. Thank you. Before we move on to Kate Forbes, who is giving the last contribution in the open debate, I draw members' attention to the headphones that are on your desk, because Kate Forbes will be making her contribution in Gaelic. Interpretation facilities are available. I feel like I was about to just do all the demonstrations. I won't do that. You can plug your headphones in to the little socket at the base of the console. If you are unable to hear it, you should press the audio button on the console screen and select channel 2 in English. I call on Kate Forbes. Tape live. Mae yw i ffwrn ac ym Sngesbyd Shores gasg yn ddych chi'r mwy taech rwy ymwyrdd yn y fwy unesgw i'n gaelic yn yw rwy. Be biaith i'n fwych glodg na'ch maryn y fawn, yn y fwy unesgw ein i'r sôn cultur, dwylochus ac isiwn nos yn yng Ngheil, sawn mae'r chynuch yn er un ma'ch glodg yn nimi yn orad siŵ. Haid unesgw y cilwch, yn byw un i fynd yn tannu bod culturell heritag i'ch gaelic, ac isiwn yn chi'n gaelic, gan bwydoi eile awn ar canyn, cyllid, ac isiwn i'n dwi'r chysylltu i'n erswn yn y gynullu.  Iawn i unesgwy i bwyng, ac mae'r zŷnol yn ddod i eluach eu gaelic un i gaelic. Oherwydd baen o gaelic un o'r liste unesgwy, oedd ni'n cael ei rhywbeth gwneud i gwyntechwch Ieithwch ychwanegwch eich gaelig i gaelig canyn ar niachtr i efan. Haid gaelig byw, haid byw y mesc skolaryn, coiwrsnochyn, parntyn a gys nimien yn poblwch, ond y gwlas ychwanegwch a gys am seialtoch. Aleister Allan.  Kate Forbes? Mae'r môl wedi bod yn cael ei gaelig yn gyfnodd ac yn cyfrifiad. Rwy'n eich gaelig Pan wneud i'r adnogwch gaelig a chyngmyniadau'r glai'mbytr, a saberwchwch gan gaelig, a neud i'r adnogwchau'r地fnogaeth, oedd ddaiddi directifol reliol y p ff???? A wneud i'r adnogwch gaelig? A gdael i'r adnogwch gaelig a astrology fel hanes i'r seamsfi, oedd patient, ac adnogwch gaelig y cadw. O 좋아하는 diwethaf heelsio fel di wre~~ Szil maehen i gen Pl� ben dysg. A daeth i ddaeddi sydd egy angen i gaelig o ledi ac i injection courtw lianol eu prestigio fel complaint. yn yw yr ei wneud i'r gynllun lle unifau unesgw. Haid tor i ffyrdd o'r rhoi yn ffractiwch ersawn ar ddwchis ac ar canyn ei un, mae'n fiaith y haf ychoryn y fiedgiau lle i grys eich eich alig mae'r ryddygin, a'n taitasg i. Get y gilyng eich alig, ymydwch byl ychryu am snyddblien i'n ei gael y ffraith, haith i byo haath mae'r hwrst eich hunysgwr, ac i'n wyg i'r ja chi i g 패 o yn y methu ddau ddau o'r llawch a'i'n gwyroch mawr canon sy'n brif. Mae'r un peth wrth o ambition i'r llawch a dwi'n rheswb i'r bwrw peth yn baut y ddechrau ddau.  Harawn sy'ch ymwrch yn y gael tach i'r sialding, gyfel Lwch chi'n cerdyn nhw miliwn nôr a'n sy'n gallu gyda'r economi halape gach blyny, ac ysgyn ni'n myr fylwch. Ac ysgynnu'n cyllid y ffio bryn mae Lwch yn gallu, mae'r ael sy'n gael clachwch, gythrych, bydd sy'n y bryn mungalic, mae'r rhyddig yn ffalau, bydd sy'n y bryn mungalic, gyda fi y bryn sy'n gallu. Ym blyny sy'n blyny'n y hoi gri a ham, ac ysgynnu'n cef, han o hoi gri, sy'n effeisyn, mae'r hwrs bwyl ei le, y gyda fylwch, gyfel chiol gael o'ch haes bioffigol. Donald Cameron. Felly, agon i'r gwrwm, gyfa'n effeisyn, ac ydw i'n eradolcos gyhar i'n ffein oca. Kate Forbes. Mae'r cychwyn mae'r myhyn sy'n myhyn gallu trafion y gallu, ac ysgynnu'n cef y gallu'n cef y gallu'n cef y gallu'n cef y gallu'n cef y gallu'n cef y gallu. Mae aathfîtrfamol eich dnuniau eu gefelf gallic, ac i mug riding y gallu'n scholinaru'n echnech llgalur yn y gallu y llun pag eu gyfan gyllân, ac e'n m eihaniach i neud liciol yn ychychllun y gallu'n g�ref. yna, hyДа oedd gaelwch ffordd a'r cwtrwmhoch gynt yw yrwla i'w mor un paing. Tapa Lev. Byddwn i'n gwybod, wrth gwrs, i ddim yn gofio bod yn gweithio ar gyfer mae'n mynd yn ynteil, ni'n gweithio amchryfoddiant fel hyn oherwydd yr un... ganfokoi amchryfoddiant, iawn, y cwngloch. Gwaith ar siŵr fwyllgor, Bill and I call Willie Rennie. Diolch yn fawr, d reinwyrdemon, môrfa, ac yn c姁len, hanfrewdd iawn i'r erbyn swyddi montINTERPOSING Lyric. Fyma wedi'i eu ma ardinell a'i sicrhauPor caщum i anghy食べ wahanol y ceoedd siuyaethau y bydd heb rynнокol. YchYN Claudia ownera nhw yng Nghino ar ôl unig honn felly yn yygul Ffìm dash cursair ar yr aальномют digonol, gwyliaf yn eu syrnau, e waist y ma yn siarad yn gyda chery jiwlad Fynd i'n fyro i sus wedi sydd newydd o Gyllen respuestaethig oherwydd iawn miliaeth cyffreницol boiled h vesswgol iawniau gipsau i chi oes iawniau Lleidwyrisodeis i WILLER neu roedd yn cadw yng Ngôl Usually. Dw meals hon nesaf o'n angen ond hon ni'n g�ol Mae'r ances yw i nhw'r gymie, ond mae'r chyfnod fferdd mwy. Mae'r ances yw'r hunanol ag ymddiannol i ddechrau bywau yi gwyrydau hyn. Felly pob hyn am gweld i chi ddweud ei wneud. Felly mae'r ances yw'r cerdd iawn, ac mae'n edrych yn dd�cto gwybod uch hefyd i chi yn ei ddim yn ei gwybod. Mae'n ddatblygu 밀lu'r cyfforddau a'r oeslavu'r cyfforddau i fynd i gyfnod i'w gwyllwch. That's why I think it is important that we do recognise intangible heritage like that, the stories, the experiences, our lifestyle and that's why I sign up and I think the UK government should sign up to the convention before too much longer. I'm grateful to Maurice Corry for his contribution this afternoon about the Highland Games. Serious Highland Games in my constituency are the oldest games in Scotland. They were established 700 years ago following the Battle of Bannockburn. Robert the Bruce himself granted a charter to hold the games in appreciation of the support from the locals in the village for that battle. The games are still an incredibly popular event today. They're held in the natural amphitheater in the village and are special because I think of two things. One, they attract visitors from all over the world. Americans, Brazilians, Australians, Chinese, they mix their rub shoulders with the locals who often come back to share the stories of their lives when they've gone further afield. They've lived somewhere else. They come back to the village on an annual basis to share that cultural, that intangible culture, those stories from previous years. It's that eclectic mix that I think makes it successful. How do we support the Highland Games, which are not just in Serious, but in over 60 other places across the country? If you add on the borders games, you've got even more of those traditional games that take part. You've got the heavies, the dancers, the athletes, but you also have the cyclists too. I think that there are two or three things that we can do to support it. One, do more of what VisitScotland is doing to get more tourists to come to those games. VisitScotland is a grand job of promoting the Highland Games. We also need to encourage Scottish Athletics to do even more to get more runners, athletes, to take part in the games as well. I think that we need to provide some financial support, some seed-corning funding for the games, because sometimes it's particularly challenging and difficult with the new regulations that are in place to make those games thrive. That's why I think that a small grant scheme to support the Highland Games, to make them grow, to make them flourish is exactly what we should be doing. I encourage Fiona Hyslop to consider that in her summing up, to provide a small grant scheme to make the Highland Games the best that they possibly can be. It's been a very interesting short debate. We'll be supporting the Government motion and it'll be good to see a unified position coming from Parliament. The Conservative amendment today sounds very similar to the apply that Rod Ashton in the House of Lords gave last April, but I welcome that this afternoon they have confirmed that they are supportive of ratification. The UNESCO convention has been laid out by members this afternoon where there are strong arguments for us to be made for ratifying. Ash Denham argued that Scottish culture loses out at the moment, but I recognise that. I also recognise that, if we were to ratify it, it would benefit the whole of the UK. We have a rich history across the whole of the UK, whether it's Lancashire, clog dancing or folk music or on and on, so I think that there would be benefits across the whole of the country. I just want to say a slight word about Brexit. There is consideration to be given about how culture will operate on an international stage post-Brexit, and the chamber is familiar with concerns around freedom of movement and access to European cultural funds. I think that joining the convention would demonstrate our commitment to co-operative working on an international stage within culture. Members have also given local examples from their region or their constituencies. Rachel Hamilton made points about how the list is created, whether it should be self-selected or not. If we were to ratify it, I think that that would give a formal process to it that would be of benefit. Some people have mentioned the role of young people and the importance of education. That was a well-made point. In this age of globalisation, how do we continue interests from generation to generation? Maurice Corry and Willie Rennie raised highland games and spoke about the struggle for volunteers and financial support for the games, recognising the importance of them to Scotland and recognising their challenges. Willie Rennie offered some solutions to that that I think would be worth pursuing. However, as I said in the opening statement, our local authorities have often played a big role in supporting those types of events, and they are under significant funding pressure. Johann Lamont made the point about people's understanding of what is intangible. Sometimes the language that we are using does not really help in what we are trying to explain to people. She also talked about challenging our notion of what culture is. In the opening statements that I made about intangible cultural heritage, it is more linked to communities and grass roots. I think that it would widen out what our understanding of culture is. A lot of members spoke about Gaelic, and the convention provides the opportunity to protect traditions that are at risk of being lost. When the Parliament was first established, I can remember that there were real concerns that Gaelic was a fading language. It certainly still needs support, but we are in a much healthier place for survival and even flourishing of the language. Kate Forbes made a strong case that it is a living and even expanding language. However, while Gaelic has still been spoken for many, it is no longer its first language. As generations pass on, there are concerns that traditions linked to Gaelic, such as the stories in the Psalms, will be at risk. Johann Lamont's speech today, which talked about her experience, has grown up with Gaelic. I think that we are perceptive and insightful. It recognises the challenges that we have in trying to capture what is important. I heard on the radio this week that there was a discussion about Doric and how to preserve Doric as a language. However, in the chamber this afternoon, we can all make cases for what we could put into the list and what should be preserved. However, ratifying the convention would provide a way to curate that and a framework for protection. However, it would also be for the committee of the convention to decide what is to be included under its criteria. It is not an expansive list, so we would need a UK and a Scottish list to sit alongside what we would argue for to be within the convention. The final point that I will quickly make is around the Napier report that the President of the Cabinet Secretary mentioned. There is an area around the pressure that it puts on to some of our cultural festivals. There has been identified that there is a risk of us losing the things that are important. If we look at Hogmanay, Hogmanay has become a big commercial festival, which is important to our tourism. The traditions in Scotland are around first footing, around lump the coal in my family, and it was around opening the back door to let out the old year and opening the front door to let the new year in. In Fife, it was always known as all year's night, not Hogmanay. Some of those, when at a time of globalisation, there is a need to maintain cultural diversity and being part of the convention could help us forward in that. I have been guilty of allowing the debate to run on a bit, and I do not want it to affect the next debate too quickly. I would ask the last two speakers if they could be kind and perhaps cut down a little bit. Brian Whittle followed by, of course, Cabinet Secretary. Good luck with that, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am delighted to close the debate today on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I am quite relieved to be at the end of the debate, because I have thought long and hard as to the nature of intangible heritage and culture, and I could not quite put my finger on it. Johann Lamont has said that every day is a school day. I do like the definition that I found in intangible cultures as works through which creativity of people finds expression, because that gives me latitude to mention whatever I like. Music for me is everything from my very favourite bagpipe piece of Highland Cathedral right through to that little old rock band from Glasgow, ACDC. I know that we are all firm this truck here, Deputy Presiding Officer, but in there lies the beauty of intangible, how far back do we have to go to claim culture? I think that sport has to lie in there too. How about Bonspill, a traditional curling tournament usually held in a frozen lake and can last up to two or three days over a weekend? Who remembers playing elastics in the school playground? I think that health and safety would have a field day with that one, but I would like to see that one brought back again. It has been mentioned today by Maurice Corry and Willie Rennie, but I am glad that they did this. They brought in Highland games, which I fondly remember during my early athletics career, getting on the ferry, going to Brodick, running on a 300-metre track on a hillside on a golf course. If you could get your stride pattern right, you could land in all the little hillocks and run faster than everybody else. I was glad to see Fiona Hyslop bringing up mini-mass fare and everything, which has once again had a great Highland games tradition. Willie Rennie? Willie Rennie would be an amateur at that time. Has he got any declarations to make about the prize money that he won at those games? I thank Willie Rennie for that. There were some of the things that we used to win when we won those little china birds things that you never, ever used in your entire life. I do not know where they got the things from, but I have no declaration to make. It is certainly not to you, Mr Rennie. I echo your call for Scottish Athletics to bring more athletes to the Highland games, because it is an experience that is beginning to be lost and helped to shape some of my previous. I will skip over some of them, but I wanted to specifically talk about things such as stone skimming or even tig. Does that lie within intangible culture? I am coming from God's own country, Deputy Presiding Officer. We were a miss of me, a inertia boy. I wondered if a great bar of rabbi burns would fall into this category. Certainly his works have been into over into my life from an early age. I remember in Trun Primary reciting that the king came riding through the toon, slaying stately through the toon, a boot to left, a boot directly, and we boot back as we will be micked. However, we jacked tog. He couldn't abide, because he was daft to be doing it at the water side. We jacked tog. Trun Primary School, 1975, running up Burns competition. That early education has followed me right through my life. I often passed by Burns' cottage in Ayrshire and in the Old Kirk, which spawned Tama Shantar, and Souter Johnny's cottage, which I pass often in my MSP travels. Speaking at the end of the debate, I have been able to listen to a variety of inputs into the chamber. I want to highlight Kate Forbes' wonderful, to hear her speak in Gaelic, which is such a wonderful, lyrical language, as she says, a living, breathing language. My youngest daughter is at a school where Gaelic is taught. I am glad to say that, which I thought was fantastic. I think that not all cultures should be resurrected. I think that Ash Denham talking about building and driving cattle through bonfires is maybe something that we should leave consigned to the history books. Rachel Hamilton made a very good point during the common ridings and the borders, that passing on attitudes and values, that sort of integration of incompatibility with the young and old, is extremely important. I want to speak to Claire Baker, saying that she mentioned that social background might be a barrier to cultural heritage. I am not convinced of that, to be honest, because I think that it might be a different culture. I mean my last half minute. No, I won't. You only have to listen to the musings of that great poet Billy Connolly to get a view into that world and that different culture. I think that the safeguarding and maintaining of Scotland's intangible cultural heritage is incredibly important and I believe lies with all of us in our communities, in our schools and in our homes passing it on. Don't try and define it because the title of this debate tells you that it can't. What we should do is enjoy it, revel in it and pass it on. It's intangible how long Mr Whittle speaks when you ask him to do so quickly.  Please, up to six minutes but no more. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been a short debate but it's also been an important debate. To raise debate is the latest in a recent series of strategic discussions about this issue. Last November, I chaired the Strategic Historic Environment Forum, which considered intangible cultural heritage. The forum noted not only the amount of good work that has already been taken forward but also the many organisations throughout Scotland with a keen interest in intangible cultural heritage. I was pleased to hear of the cross-party group and cultures welcome consideration of the issue in November of this year. Turning to some of the contributions in the debate, I should declare an interest. I am currently a chieftain of West Lothian Highland Games and I would like to formally invite both Brian Whittle and Willie Rennie to the hill race of West Lothian Highland Games that will be taking place in a few months' time. Reflecting on some of the points that we made, Clare Baker in a very considered suite set out the clear explanation of the obligations. I would point out that one of my concerns and why the UK hasn't signed up to date was that it thought that somehow it would open the floodgates of costs and requests. Of course, we then had that both from Willie Rennie and Maurice Corry in relation to the Highland Games. There have previously been discussions and I will ask Event Scotland to engage in that again, but I don't think that we should put the issue of instant demands for funding in the way of understanding what the wider obligations are of the convention. Ash Denham talked about the Celtic traditions and Beltyn. I know of people who have washed their faces. The Presiding Officer may be one of them who has washed their faces at Arthur's Seat, but those Celtic traditions tell us much about our stories and they need to be expressed as well. Johann Lamont said that reflections, as was Kate Forbes and the importance of Gaelic language, are important to the traditions and the living traditions and the developing traditions of Gaelic are very important indeed. She reflected that there perhaps isn't that much disagreement in terms of what we're trying to achieve here. I do think that the amendment is probably a necessary commentary because we want a clear, simple statement. I'm not saying that I'm demanding that they sign it up tomorrow. I would like them to do that, but I do think that it's something that would be a very strong statement. I welcome Rachel Hamilton's reflections of the need to help the UK to understand the importance of signing this up and signing up to this convention. I would also like to inform the chamber that I discussed the issue in Paris earlier this month with Mr Anguida, the Deputy Director General of UNESCO. I assured him that, even without the UK's ratification of the convention, intangible cultural heritage was strongly supported by the Scottish Government. We also agreed on the tremendous scope to use modern means, including digital technology, to celebrate intangible cultural heritage. He expressed a keen interest in today's debate and I agree to inform Mr Anguida about the issues that were raised in the chamber this afternoon. It's significant to note that UNESCO was interested in what is happening here in Scotland, and we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we have much to share with the world in the area of intangible cultural heritage, not simply in the examples that we have that are part of everyday lives, but also how we approach the subject. For example, the intangible cultural heritage in Scotland wiki site, which was developed by Museums Gallery Scotland, was copied by Norway and Finland as best practice, with other nations interested in learning from that example. I would again congratulate everybody involved in the initial development of the site. Against that backdrop, it seems to me that the time is right for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to call for the UK Government to ratify the convention. Indeed, it may be the case that the UK Government's ratification of the 1954 or Hague convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict that took place last year. It signals a meaningful shift in the UK Government's approach to culture within the wider international context. I would like to reassure the Conservatives that that was the impression that I received from the UK ambassador to UNESCO when I met him in Paris. I believe that it is important to promote and safeguard our cultural practices, our living traditions for this and future generations. It is in that generous, encouraging and possible spirit that I think that the chamber can come together, preferably with a simple motion. I understand and reflect the commentary from the Conservatives, but I do not think that it is necessary in order to communicate our message. It is in that context that I would urge the chamber, with our responsibilities for culture and heritage, to call upon the UK Government to ratify the UNESCO convention for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. I ask the members to support the motion. That concludes the debate on Scotland's support for the UNESCO convention for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. I will give some seconds for seats to be shifted.


Hello everyone, there are a few alarming symptoms related to the gastrointestinal tract. Any difficulty in swallowing in the form of food sticking sensation in the throat or in the chest. Any unintentional weight loss of 7 to 8 kilos or more over a span of few weeks to few months. Any presence of blood in the vomitus or any passage of blood or mucus in the stools. Any recent onset of change in bubble habits such as phases of constipation followed by phases of watery stools or vice versa and sometimes the feeling of any lump in the abdomen. So these are the so called red flag symptoms related to the gastrointestinal tract which could be a sign that an individual might be harboring an underlying major gastrointestinal health issue. So any person with the presence of any one of these symptoms should immediately consult a gastro surgeon for a detailed evaluation and to start appropriate management.