And so I'm gonna do just a little bit of stretching no one here is obligated to do that with me but if you want to take a part in this we can all maybe like stand up, get our hands up, feel us on the side, get those arms out in front, oh yeah here we go, feel the burn. I mean Nasty's just coming, did you? Alright awesome, thank you for indulging me in that. Don't do all of this, it feels so much better. Cool, so today we're going to be talking about property based testing and generative testing. And this is actually not the talk that I submitted, nor was it the talk that was accepted. But after Day's keynote yesterday I was really inspired by the idea of thinking differently. We are in an incredibly early and fertile time in a lizard. And I think it's really important to question the status quo, question the things that we've been doing. And for me property testing is that thing, that's the thing that's hit me the most in recent time. As I would think differently about a problem. I was very happy that after some drinks I went up to John and I was like please can I give this other talk? And he said yes, so here we are. Side note, I also have these awesome elixir sugars with elixir in a bottle which is just really cool. So if you want one of those you can find me at Elixir. So what are we going to talk about today? We're going to discuss testing kind of as it is today. We're going to discuss property tests. We'll look at some basic examples of how to use those and then we'll look at trying to model a real world application using properties. So let's kick it off. So testing. Who here believes testing is a really good idea? Who here tests? I saw someone's hands start to go down. I get it. Testing is interesting, it's also very challenging and it takes time. I think if you were to sort of map my career happiness on an XY graph like this it might look something like this. Down here in the early days I started out writing C for embedded systems and I did not even know that testing was a thing. It took me getting into Java and learning JNU to even discover that something like software testing was a real thing. And then I had the great fortune of joining sort of the Ruby community which is not a very popular thing to say anymore at elixir conferences. I actually got a lot out of being in the Ruby community right on because we had these great testing tools built right into the language. That was really important for me. And so my happiness started to go up when I discovered TDD. I discovered there was a way to write software tests. It was really cool. And that took me a long ways into my career until at some point I began to plateau. I sort of refer to this as like the quiet contemplation phase where I began to sort of question what it was that I was actually doing. And I wasn't getting the benefits from testing anymore that I used to get. And it led to this sort of period which I can now call the trough of disillusionment. Where I sort of fell into the camp with like I don't really know why I'm doing this. I don't want to do this anymore. It doesn't benefit me in the same way. And of course now I'm all the way off to the side because I have discovered and enjoyed the property test. As you will soon see. So it's really hard for me to talk about testing in my life without talking about TDD. The two things are really intertwined together. And in case you don't know what TDD is, I'm going to stop using this acronym and just find what it is and say that TDD is test driven developer. And the process is pretty straightforward in theory. You write a failing test. You write just enough code to make that test pass. And then you refact. And you continue in this cycle over and over again. You add new features by writing a failing test for that feature. Describe how you want that feature to... What you want that feature to do, the behavior of that feature. And then you write it up just enough code to make that test pass in your factory. And also in case anyone is feeling pedantic out there, which we're all programmers. So unfortunately those two things go hand in hand sometimes. I'm using BED here as well as an example. I use the terms BED and TDD interchangeably. It's not really important. Ideally if you do this, you will gain some base benefits. For instance, you'll get validation. You'll validate that your algorithm works in the way that you believe it should. You will get protection from aggression. You won't have as many bugs anymore. You won't ship broken code. And thirdly, and probably the most important, you will gain design. By allowing your laziness to sort of take over while you write a test, you'll make testing easy. And through that, all these good things will sort of shake up. You'll do things like dependency injection. You'll separate your concerns correctly. And a lot of people talk about this like test provider mental gargles. They provide this sort of easy row that you can take and keeps all the bad stuff on your periphery. Very important to note though that tests directly couple to your implementation every single one of them. Now that's not necessarily a bad thing. We often want that in many ways actually. We want to create a contract with our external APIs. The downside of this though is that as soon as we change this API, even if we're only testing it at the boundary, and even if we only change things internally, we'll still cause tests to fail. Because every one of these things is a compliment. There just isn't a way to write an example-based test where this doesn't happen at some point. And so that kind of leads to a meme, which is like write as few tests as possible. And you might have heard some people talk about this. So I want to try to illustrate some of these things. And I want to do that using what I believe to be an incredibly contrived and strong-man argument that will help me make my point. And I'm telling you all this upfront because I know it's a contrived and strong-man argument, but I hope that what we can do is see past that a little bit and see into the truth of what we're trying to do here. And so that all being said, let's TDD the edition. Everybody ready? I know, it's 2.30 on Friday. So how do we do this? We start with a test, obviously. So we'll test that we can add two numbers together. We'll say that we assert that adding 1 and 1 is 2, adding 0 and 2 is 2. That's pretty good. And we'll go ahead and stuff up that function call. Now if we run this, it's weak. We've got a failing test. So what are we going to do? How are we going to solve this? Well, again, let's remember, we should always write as little code as possible to make the test pass. So let's just return 2. Now we don't even need these pesky arguments. Don't just mark those as unused and we'll move on for our lives. And look, we have a green dot. We all love green dots. We shove this up onto Heroku or wherever we open up our new edition as a service. It's awesome. And everything's great. But wait. 3 in the morning, the pager comes in. If you get pinged, hey, there's an issue with that add function. It doesn't seem to work with add 3 and 4. Well, we wrote tests. How do we have a problem here? Well, what do you do when you have a problem in production? You write a test for it. Obviously. Because you don't want to have that bug anymore. So we do write a test. And they will assert that adding 3 and 4 is 7. And now how are we going to solve this? Luckily, in Elixir, we have all the power in OTP. We have nets. And furthermore, we have pattern matching. So we are very equipped to go solve this problem. So we'll just quickly inline this because I just want to save space on the slide. And we'll go ahead and add a new clause. If we see the 3, we'll return 7. And now we have green dots again. We'd rest easy. But wait. I found an edge case with add. It looks like it doesn't work if you try to add negative values. This is really wrecking my weekend. So again, what do we do? We add a test. We'll go ahead and just pick something arbitrary. Like add negative 1 and 4 is equal to 3. Run that and get something that fails. That's good. And now we're ready to go ahead and solve this. And again, luckily, Elixir, it's one of the best languages I've ever used. We had this great thing called guard clauses. And we can use those guard clauses to go ahead and protect ourselves from these pesky negative values and return the right value. And now we run that. We'll be green dots again. Bump the green merge button. Deploy it to production. That looks great. I think we finally found all the bugs. So, I told you this was a contrived strawman argument to make my point. But I do think it's important to analyze what's going on here. Because at the end of the day, this is not actually that different from how we write a book. And so in order to kind of tease this apart, I think it's important to step back and say, what have we gained from this? Well, how have we gained validation? How have we gained professional progression with design? Let's start with the top. Have we gained validation? Absolutely not. We didn't even use the plus operator. There's no way that we've actually validated this algorithm works. And so that's just right up the window. How have we gained protection from regression? Well, let me give this like a half a slash. Because we have protected ourselves from regressions that we've thought of. Or regressions that we've seen in production. But we haven't protected ourselves from things that we can't see. From the sort of unknown unknowns problem. And how we gave design. I actually think this is up for debate. I personally still do a lot of TDV. The difference is now I throw the tests that I would have done. I do think I gained some benefit from doing that. Others have different opinions. For every research paper that says that TDV is valuable, there's other papers that say that TDV is the only way to find bugs or whatever it is going to be. My opinions were probably just really bad at writing papers about software practices. But, you know, your mileage may vary. But I do think it's important going back to this metaphor, sort of these tests providing Gargoyle's idea. I think that's really cool. It's just that I don't know how efficient it is to drive down the highway smashing into the Gargoyle all the time. Which is kind of unfortunately what tends to happen. One thing to remember here is that there are bugs in your car. All of you. There are bugs out there in your car and they're waiting. They're just waiting for three in the morning to pop up. And unfortunately, there's no, it is an untenable problem to sit there and try to write enough tests to find out. You could be there until the heat death of the universe. And if you want to spend your life doing that, that's fine. It's not what I want to do necessarily. And beyond that, what about bugs that you can't easily write tests for like a race addition? Like especially in Alexa where we're going to have multiple processes all sort of working at the same time. We haven't fully eliminated race conditions. How are we going to write unit tests for that? How do you do that? So these are sort of the problems that I see with testing in sort of example-based testing in TDD as I've been doing it at least for the past several years. And if that's the problem, obviously I'm hoping to present a solution and if you're out here at this talk, that solution is property tests or one of the solutions. So for those of you who aren't familiar with property tests they're sort of, most everybody cites this paper for the birth of this idea by John Hughes who's going to class on talking about QuickCheck. And this was a tool written for Haskell in order to apply property testing, apply generative testing to algorithms and data structures. And since then it's been ported to a ton of other languages. Basically every language that matters at this point. In fact John Hughes went on to write one for Erlang. It's an hour-licensed product and it's probably the best QuickCheck implementation now. There's even one Crocker row one for JavaScript I haven't used it, but if Crocker rowed it I assume it is called the good parts. So, but the idea is that we're going to, there's kind of a thing that they fixated on in this is that typically with example-based tests we have something like this. We have an expected value and we have an actual value and we compare those two things. And you could basically vote on every test that you write to something like this. And then the problem with this though is that it's incredibly overly specific. If you know the output that you want to have then you can't possibly interact with all the other possible input data that you could have. So for instance if we had like a distribution like this you would pick a couple points on it. This doesn't actually completely satisfy all of the different pieces of data that you could input into your algorithm. And so instead of this what we really want to do is we're going to draw a box around all of this and say well it kind of fits into here. So what we'll do is we'll start by just generating data. In this case we're going to generate integers this could be really whatever you want. We're going to pass that into some function, some property and then we're going to look at the output. We're going to make some decisions based on the output. And this thing in the middle you'll also hear me refer to this as an invariant. So it's important to define what an invariant is. An invariant is a function quantity or property that remains unchanged when a specified transformation is applied. In this case you can kind of think about an invariant or a property as a law. A law that your algorithm has to conform to. So with all of that sort of head knowledge let's look at how we apply this. The first thing we want to do if we want to go back to our original example is we have to ask ourselves this question what is true about addition? What is true about addition? This is really hard. And this is actually where property testing becomes incredibly difficult because you have to stop and reason very deeply about the algorithm that you're testing.  Or you can, you know, if it's data structure you might be able to look at the rules of that data structure but we need to figure out what those properties are. This can be very challenging. But if you think about it for a while you might remember that there's this interesting property called addition which is if you add zero to a value you get the same value back out. This is called the identity property. So let's write a test for all. So we'll start the same way we would normally while we're testing our stubbed out function column here and then we're going to use QuickServe, thanks Dave for our tests. And we're going to start, do that by saying P test. And then we need a value. So we're going to generate an x value. And that x value would be an x value. And then finally we can actually go ahead and write our assertion. We'll say if you add x and zero you should get x back out. And if we run this we should get a failure because we haven't implemented that yet. And we can now go back and implement it. For the sake of learning we'll go ahead and take our same tactics we did when we TBD this and we'll go and write the least amount of code to get this to pass. And so in this case we're just going to return x. Alright so that will cause that to pass. So now we need to think about more properties. We need to think about other things that help us to find addition. And again if you think about it for a while you may remember there's a property called commutivity which means that I can add x plus y. And that's the same thing as saying y plus x. So let's write a property for that as well. In this case we'll generate two different values x and y. And we'll go ahead and add them in different orders and we should get the same value. And now we should get a failure. And you can see what's happening here. We're actually seeing, it's actually showing you the values x is 0 and y is 1 and that will cause, that will exercise a failure for this algorithm. Which makes sense if you look at our documentation. So we need to figure out a piece of code that will satisfy this test. And the thing is, I kind of remember that multiplication is commutative so let's try multiplying these numbers. So we'll multiply x and y and we'll see what happens. It looks like we broke the first test, the identity test, because if you multiply it by 0 you're going to get 0 back out. Again elixir is very cool and we can pattern match on that case and we'll have a guard there to look for 0 and then we'll just return x if that's the case. And then we'll run that and we'll get that to pass. It's important to note at this point that neither one of those properties even taken together is enough to define what addition is. So we need more. And there's one other property it's called associativity. It allows us to, it means that we can add like say 1 plus x and then add y and that's the same thing as padding. So let's write a property for that as well. Again, we'll start off and we'll generate some values x, y, and z and then we'll add them in different orders and now we should see a failure. Which we do. Awesome. And you can see the values that it's happening that it's trying and that will cause us to actually get a failure. And now finally taking together all three of these properties we can do nothing but go back to our original implementation no more shenanigans and actually implement it using plus. And that's because at this point we have defined the essence of what it means to add such those three properties together. Any one of them alone isn't enough and this is sort of a really powerful idea that you can describe sort of the base principle of something with these different properties. It's very, very interesting. So now that we've gone through some of the basics let's look at how we take this knowledge and apply it to a real application. So I wrote a little Phoenix app it's a luncheon voter so you can go and say this is what I want to go get for lunch today it's all using channels and whatnot and I want to write property tests for this. So we start that by modeling the application. Again going back to this diagram we need to generate some values we need to pass them to a property and then we need to make a decision and the first question we have to ask ourselves is what is the input domain here? Like what are the possible values that we can generate? We can think about we can derive that list of we can derive that input domain from our users. So if you think about a user the way that they show up to your site they'll arrive and then they can choose to vote and they can vote for the middle one they can vote for the one on the left and then they can vote for the one on the right. So what we can do is in terms of a finite state machine this might be an example finite state machine of a user they start the logged out state they transition to the logged in state they go back to the logged out state and then once they're logged in they can also vote in which case they'll stay in the logged in state. So what we can do is starting from a given state we can generate transitions so for instance and then we'll be in the logged in state and then at that point we can say we can make an assertion for instance something like did we actually get logged in? Once they're there we might generate another command like a vote command and at that point we can also make another assertion something like did the vote increase and what we'll do is we'll start generating just lists and lists of commands so start with one then another and another then fails and then what will happen using a technique called shrinking the library will actually pick out or help us pick out the list of commands that will actually exercise a failure and then return those to us so what we'll be left with is a set of commands that you can run that will actually cause a failure to happen on your site. Now list of commands might look something like this we might have two different users and then for instance Chris might vote for one and one and three and Chris might vote for two and this might cause a failure and at the end of it what we'll get back out is a list like this which is much more useful. So how do we write this in code? Well Chris uses a pollution to generate streams of data and so we can kind of take advantage of that so we'll just define a function called generate commands so it'll take a list of names and then we'll return we'll return a list we'll return a list of things to do that list is going to be a list of votes and we're going to generate 20 of them because it's about all it's going to take to actually exercise a failure in this application. You can see we're actually calling into a second function there gen vote and passing in the list of names and we can define that as well so gen vote is going to be a tuple and it's going to look like a valuable vote and it's going to choose from one of the names and we're going to also choose one of our lines one two or three and these are the different things you can vote for and then once we've done that we'll return to the property so let's start simple and say something like well a user's vote should always increase so let's write a property for that we will start off with our standard test we'll generate a list of commands in this case we'll pass in just a single and we'll go ahead and do a little bit of setting up the world since the votes are a global thing we'll just need to reset that before the test starts and then finally we'll tell it to run commands at the end we'll get a result back out of it and we'll assert that the result is a true or false the implementation for run commands is incredibly straightforward it takes the list of commands and it increases over time starting from some initial state so for instance in this case we'll start from zero and at true and then we'll run each command and then the run command down here is not very interesting actually it just calls into the module based on the state of itself so as I said we can model everything as a state machine so we need to define that state machine so we'll do that and we'll start by having a vote action so this is something that a user could do and in this case we're just posting to the API but this could be anything you wanted it could be you could actually use a browser and test with the actual browser and test the API and kind of test whatever order you want this is just implementation detail it's easier for it all but you see what's going to happen here we're going to do a close we'll make some new votes and then we'll turn it okay once that's done we need a way to transition to the next state so we'll have a vote next that we'll define that will allow us to sort of say this is the next state we should be in and this is the value of that state after we're done transitioning this is what it should be and in this case all we're going to do is go and update the count for our name and the thing that we go in for and then finally we have a post a thing and a way to sort of make an assertion and this happens after we've transitioned in this case we can actually get the real result the actual result that came back and compare it to our expected result and it's nice because at this point we actually kind of get to get back to our expected versus actual which tends to be easier to reason about and so now we're up to go ahead and run this test and if we run that you'll see it passes that's kind of boring so we should come up with some other properties for this and I think another good one might be that users shouldn't affect each other's votes like you don't want to vote when you can't see someone else's vote out so we'll like that test as well it's going to look very similar to the first in this case we're going to generate two different users Chris and Jane we'll reset our vote counter again and then we'll go ahead and run our commands and then we'll start the result so it looks very similar the big difference though is that instead of running just commands this time we're going to instead run parallel commands and what that's going to do is it's going to take the list of commands it's going to split them and then it's going to actually run both lists basically and this should be interesting if we run that you can see we'll actually get a failure so I added some debugging in here this is the first set of commands that it actually tried to run and then this is what it shrank down to and this is really interesting because it says Jane votes for one and Chris votes for one we don't get our expected results and I just think this is the coolest thing ever because I got this working at one point and I just giggled for like 15 minutes because it was so exciting because this means like we found a race condition but we found a bug without having to do without having to look for that bug but that's awesome, that's so exciting and of course if we go and look at the code you might be able to see from this example where the actual bug is spoilers that might have written this ahead of time so that it would definitely have a race condition in it but what's happening here is that we're getting the votes out we're updating and we're putting the votes back in and that means it looks something like this like two different clients are talking to the vote counter they both ask it for the count of votes they both see a three then they both update it and then they both put that value back in plus one is four so we've lost somebody's vote in that and this is easy to go through at this point, we can just go and linearize both of those rights so with that I think it's important again to step back and look at what we've gained from this so this is our list, this is what we wanted to get out of TDD well do we get validation? well yes because we've actually been able to describe the entire input domain now each time you run the test it's not going to run it with every possible value that would be untenable but over time you will run it with more and more random velocity and you will begin to find edge cases and in fact if you run this in something like a continuous integration environment it will continue to find bugs free we've gotten, because of that we also gain protection from regression we can protect ourselves from the regression and we can protect ourselves from the regression that we haven't even discovered yet that we haven't even thought about yet and finally, do we get design? I would say that we have because by stopping and thinking about your users and by thinking about the ways that they interact in your site, you are going through the same process that you would have with TDD you're thinking about the problem which is the whole point so in this talk we have seen how to think in properties we've been able to see how to model applications very easy ways to generate data, how to generate commands and then how to model users as finite state machines if you want to learn more about this stuff there's a ton of resources on it I totally recommend the original paper it's a little dense but it's worth reading most of the state machine stuff all comes out of a paper called finding race conditions in furline with quick check and pulse where they find a race condition and deaths I believe and a lot of that is taken from there other than the deterministic schedule but if you want to know more about that talk to James in the back and there's a great, a bunch of great talks out there as well so go check all those things out and finally I can only leave you with a question which is if you could write less code and find more bugs and if those tests that you write continue to find more bugs and you can continue to iterate quickly and provide value for your customers would you do that? Thank you


difficult to understand how the Government can claim to be pursuing an economic strategy, categorised by inclusive growth and opportunities for all, when we know that we now have 140,000 fewer Scots going to college than we did when they took office. As John Pentland and Mark Griffin said, we need to do more in this area in order to tackle the taming gap that is seen as a priority of this Government. As members in the chamber will know, I am passionate about seeking equality for disabled people in our society. It is because of this that, last month, I submitted a freedom of information request to all 32 of Scotland's local authorities, asking for the number of staff they employed in schools specifically trained to support pupils with additional support needs. It found that the number of those staff members had declined in 22 of the 32 authorities, and overall dropped from 3,363 in 2012 to 2,963 in 2014 across Scotland. I urge the Scottish Government to urgently investigate that matter as part of their overall growth strategy. How can we, as legislators, hope to maximise the economic and societal potential of some of our most vulnerable people when, as the increasing number, we cut the specialist support that is available to them? The Scottish Children and Service Coalition has already warned that the cuts to support staff could lead to the prospect of a lost generation of young people. Add to that the fact that children identified as having additional support needs disproportionately come from lower-income families and areas of high deprivation. Let's remove barriers that do not allow them to keep up. I have previously called on the Government to use the public sector social economic duty to properly scrutinise the legislation that it makes, and I believe that the example that I have highlighted above is the perfect example of where the Government could use it. Before moving to my new position within the Scottish Labour finance team, I was a party spokesperson for women's employment, therefore it would be remiss of me not to at least touch on how we can better encourage growth with the maximum societal benefits by opening up metaphoric doors for women. The fact that 98 per cent of construction apprentices were male and 97 per cent of childcare apprentices were female in the flagship modern apprenticeship programme in 2012 has often been brought up in this chamber, and rightly so, it goes to show what can happen if care is not taken to maximise the potential of everyone in our society. It is little doubt that Scotland's job of the future lies in the science technology, engineering and math sector, as others have mentioned. It is no secret that the levels of occupational segregation in this corner of the economy are staggering. Last year only six to eight engineering apprentices were female. In 2015, the Government's own maximising economic opportunities for women in Scotland report demonstrated that 73 per cent of female STEM graduates did not work in their respective fields after graduation. A few months ago, I said on a speaker's chamber that it used to be the advances in science and technology that liberated women, but now they have the potential to hold them back. However, I never followed up with, but in retrospect, I should have, was that that would also hold back our economic growth and aspirations for inclusive growth and opportunities for all. To conclude, few across this chamber would oppose economic growth, but economic growth for the sake of economic growth is a rather hollow ambition. The Government has taken some encouraging steps within the Scottish economic strategy to broaden the beneficiaries of growth in Scotland, but we believe that they must be bolder. Our Parliament has significant powers over procurement and other areas that have yet to be utilised. We have full control over all matters concerning education and, as the Opposition is our responsibility to say that the Government has thus far failed to use those powers to promote opportunities for all. The Scottish Government should not have to come out and tell us what its political priorities are. They should be evident in their budget and legislation. At the moment, they are simply not. Thank you, Mr McMahon. I now call on John Swinney to wind up the debate depth for First Minister, Tull 5. I do not in any way want to do any damage to Claudia Beamish, but I have to say that I enjoyed her thoughtful speech this afternoon. I think that I probably spent the weekend following her advice of spending time with family and nature in that I had to fulfil a Government commitment in Loch Boysdale on Saturday afternoon and decided that instead of spending the weekend with the Government entourage, I would take my family with me, and it was incredibly better for the prospects. I hope that none of my private office will take unbridge what I have just put on the parliamentary record, but it was indeed a pleasant way to spend a couple of days on Government business. That was one of the points that Claudia Beamish made with which I agreed, because she was making a point about the breadth of the focus of our work, particularly in the assessment of the performance, not just of the Government's delivery of its agenda, but of the impact of the collective activities that the Government, local authorities, public bodies and a whole variety of other players are involved in enhancing the quality of life of people in Scotland. That is the context in which we have to consider many of the issues around the economic performance of Scotland. Claudia Beamish went on to apply that in a number of different areas in relation to the roll-out of the common agricultural policy, the importance of land reform, which I saw vividly in the western Isles on Saturday, because I was visiting a venture taken forward by the community ownership company, the community interest company, Storace-Ust, at Loch Boysdale, where a £10 million project, which I think most dispassant observers would have thought was pretty unlikely to get off the ground, has actually been successfully delivered to create new harbour and marina infrastructure, which will create significant foundations to economic recovery in what is a very fragile part of the western Isles. It is correct to look at the issue, and Patrick Harvie, of course, raises those issues about the breadth of the economic impact and the breadth of economic analysis that has to be considered into the bargain. It is right to look at those questions in that way. I thought that Claudia Beamish made that point very powerfully in the speech that she delivered in Parliament today. I thought that it was also made very powerfully by my colleague Joan McAlpine in relation to the example that she cited of the specific venture of the cafe project, The Usual Place, in her constituency, which served two purposes. One added another cafe to my encyclopaedic knowledge of cafes in Scotland, which I must visit and pledge to do so, but also about the fact that many social enterprises—and Mary Scanlon made this point as well—many social enterprises, while running profitable businesses, make a profound impact on the lives and the wellbeing of individuals who many mainstream businesses find it rather difficult to reach. That has been a particular element of the direction that I have given to economic policy in Scotland over the past eight years, where one of our priorities was to expand significantly the social enterprise sector. The analysis that Joan McAlpine talked about was about the social enterprise census, which gives us a fantastic analysis about the strength of the social enterprise sector in Scotland. The fact that the social enterprise sector is viewed as being world-leading here in Scotland and the world social enterprise congress this year again has focused on the leading work that is undertaken here in Scotland, which is something that we should very much welcome. It illustrates perfectly the example of the usual place that Joan McAlpine raised. It illustrates perfectly the point that the Government is making about the emphasis on inclusive growth within the Scottish economic strategy. A lot of the debate has concentrated around the areas of engineering and oil and gas activity. I thought that among some of the commentary about the performance of the engineering sector and the manufacturing base of Scotland's Stuart McMillan's points, the welcome news of additional orders in Ferguson is an illustration of the success that we can deliver in improving the depth of the school-based Scotland and the economic performance of Scotland as a consequence. Of course, Ferguson's is only in place because of very concerted and focused activity by ministers ably responded to by Jim McAlpine in making sure that we still have in Scotland on the Clyde engineering capability that can build ships of the scale and the magnitude that we can now contemplate at Ferguson's shipyard. That is an illustration of active Government economic policy that has brought that about. There are a number of comments made about the oil and gas sector. I think that Tavish Scott contributed significantly to the debate on the role of the oil and gas authority. I had a very constructive meeting with the oil and gas authority just last week. Some of the suggestions that Tavish Scott made about the fiscal regime to encourage exploration and development, particularly through the use of capital allowances, are suggestions that we welcome and that we will advance in our wider discussion on the future of the sector. I wonder if, in those discussions, I had some conversations with the employers about potential impending industrial action in the North Sea. I did because I was anxious to avoid such industrial action taking place. I was anxious to encourage the type of climate that is embodied in the fair work agenda that is taken forward by the Scottish Government, which is about encouraging employers and employees to focus on the shared interests that they have in guaranteeing progress. If there is ever a sector that needs everybody to be rowing in the same direction, it is the oil and gas sector today. I will come to Mr Scott's point about a point that is well-made. It is a siren warning to everybody that if there is premature withdrawal of activity in certain areas, that will jeopardise central infrastructure in the North Sea, and that will be to the detriment of everybody. Therefore, we need to have a cohesive approach in this respect. I will give way to Mr Harvie. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary. He may not be surprised that we are not in fact all rowing in the same direction. The previous climate change minister in the Scottish Government had at least finally accepted the scientific reality that the world has to leave most of its fossil fuels unburned. Is that still the view of the Scottish Government and what proportion does he think is responsible to extract? Mr Harvie knows that the Government is committed to responsible and sustainable extraction of oil and gas reserves in the North Sea, because what that enables us to do is to anchor many of the sophisticated engineering opportunities of which many of my colleagues have talked about earlier on. As part of the discussion on oil and gas, Rob Gibson raised the issue of the alternatives, the developments that address the issues that Mr Harvie was raising, and the point that Jackie Baillie made about the post-oil economy. One of the difficulties—this is not about blaming somebody else—is just a statement of fact. The prospects of securing greater opportunities for the renewable energy industry in Scotland are now, today, more difficult because of the actions of the United Kingdom Government than they were before the United Kingdom Government was elected in May of this year. That is something that the Minister for Energy, Energy and Energy will pursue with Amber Rudd the UK energy minister when he meets her in due course to address some of those points. The debate has been characterised, I would have to say, by a number of thoughtful contributions but an awful lot of negativity from the Labour Party. We had six minutes and 57 seconds from Jackie Baillie before she said, we must now think about the future and being positive and then went back into being negative again. If we could get to a position where the director of the CBI in Scotland, Mr Hugh Aitken, can say that the Government's economic strategy rightly prioritised making Scotland more competitive by investing in infrastructure, education and apprenticeships. Graham Smith, the STUC general secretary, can say that the STUC enthusiastically welcomes a strong commitment to tackling inequality, which infuses the refreshed Government economic strategy. The Government economic strategy is improved and strengthened by the introduction of fair work as a key priority. If we can get both the director of the CBI in Scotland to be positive about the Scottish economic strategy and the secretary general of the STUC to be positive about the economic strategy, then I remain optimistic that one day, somewhere over to my left, somebody may be able to say something positive. The Labour Party even wanted to remove the statement that we welcomed the fact that the Scottish economy has experienced its longest period of uninterrupted economic growth since 2001. Can the Labour Party not just accept the fact that the Government's economic strategy is delivering positive returns for the people of Scotland and to get behind us in our efforts? Thank you. That concludes the debate on progress in the Scottish economy. The next item of business is consideration of business motion number 14171, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting it a revision to business programme for weddings through the 9th of September. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request to speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 14171. No member has asked to speak against the motion, so I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 14171, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. Can I ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 14163 on substitution on committees, and motion number 14172 on referral of an SSI? The question is on these. Most will be put at decision time to which we now come. There are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. Can I remind members that in relation to today's debate on progress in the Scottish economy, if the amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie is agreed, the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser falls. The first question, then, is that amendment number 14156.3, in the name of Jackie Baillie, which seeks to amend motion number 14156, in the name of John Swinney on progress in the Scottish economy, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members who cast their votes now. The vote on amendment number 14156.3, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is as follows. Yes, 33. No, 77. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is that amendment number 144156.2, in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend motion number 144156, in the name of John Swinney on progress in the Scottish economy, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members who cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 144156.2, in the name of Murdo Fraser, is as follows. Yes, 12. No, 98. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is that motion number 14156, in the name of John Swinney, on progress in the Scottish economy, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members who cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 144156, in the name of John Swinney, is as follows. Yes, 60. No, 50. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore not agreed to. The next question is that motion number 14163, in the name of Joffix Patrick, on substitution and committees, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore not agreed to. The next question is that motion number 14172, in the name of Joffix Patrick, on refer for an SSI, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.


This village was a battlefield in the Republic of Vietnam. Until recently, its people lived under the domination of communist guerrillas. Vietnamese forces, assisted by United States Marines, drove out the guerrillas with force of arms. But not without loss of Vietnamese and American lives. This particular battle, in this particular war, was won. In the sense that this piece of ground is again controlled by friendly forces. In another sense, the battle for this village has just begun. For in the final victory, it will not be who holds the ground, but who holds the allegiance of the people that win this war. These are the real victims of war. The farmer, the fisherman. For them, the war is a nightmare that never ends, and the faces of the people reflect this suffering. From these villages, the Viet Cong impressed the young men into service, confiscated the rice crops and medical supplies, leaving hunger and disease as payment. But today, peace and security are no longer empty communist promises, but guarantees from the latest entries in the war, the United States Marine Corps. These newcomers are destroying the myth that communist Viet Cong cannot be defeated on the field of battle. And on yet another battlefield, these same Americans are fighting for the trust and confidence of the people caught up in a war within a war. For the tortured people of this tortured land, the first American friendship comes in a can, a can of rations, in the outstretched hand of a big friendly Marine. For wars have traditionally produced, scarred, naked children, and friendly Marines. In this humane battle for survival, there is little time for rest. Our friendship and help is available now. Friendship that comes in a bottle, pills that are needed now, as are the other miracles of modern medicine from a friendly nation. Friendship comes in the sensitive hands of the Navy doctor, who with native translators treat pneumonia with modern techniques instead of herbs on the victim's chest.  The children are usually first to accept the American doctors and corpsmen. Curious at first, sometimes frightened. Soon they come in droves. Their wounds and hurts are as varied as their faces, scratches, cuts, bruises, infections. No hurt is too small to be overlooked. Vietnam is a rugged country, even for these rugged people, taught by hard knocks to cope with their environment. A simple scratch, uncleaned and untreated, can result in a crippled, twisted limb, a diet of rice and fish, and sometimes very little of that, depending on the catch of a harvest, leads to malnutrition, bad teeth, or no teeth at all. This war within a war is somewhat new to these battle-ready Leathernecks. There are few textbook answers. Americans are writing a manual for problems as complex as human nature itself. Often it's frustrating. The results slow in showing. Marines are learning to wage this new kind of war, and it is paying off.  Happiness is the face of each little girl, as she peaks cautiously at what is probably her first doll. Happiness is the face of a young American, as he hands the orphan this un-greened of treasure. These children have lived with war their entire lives. These gifts bring simple happiness. A happiness which comes in many small, simple ways. A common borrowed soap, and a bucket of clean water, drawn from a well, dug by Marines. Just a little water and a little soap can prevent much of the common sickness, long believed to be the fortunes of life. Friendship is the fingers of a Marine rifleman, teaching a new friend to count. This American is speaking words of English to youth flares, hungry for learning, hungry for a friend. Friendship is friendship in any language. Today, Marines patrol the same waterways that were once crowded with sandpans, loaded with fresh produce for the local markets. River traffic is no longer safe for either farmer or tradesman. There is now only the suspenseful silence of deserted farms and villages, where even the animals have been butchered or stolen. These sounds of life have been replaced by a constant threat, which lurks unseen from the riverbank, a patient enemy waiting an opportunity to strike from ambush, disappear, and strike again in another location. This threat requires constant vigilance and the ability to strike back quickly and accurately. These Marines on river patrol are ready to challenge the authority of the Viet Cong, wherever and whenever they strike. Marines penetrate dark jungle trails, patrol every rice paddy in swamp to keep the land secure. Over terrain such as this, it can truly be called a walking man's war. Good news travels fast in Vietnam. It travels in ever widening circles, spreading rapidly from village to village, stories of available rice for hungry stomachs, and medical aid for ill and injured children sweep the countryside. Soon, the desire for these necessities and for an end to a life of privation outweigh the fear of communist reprisal. At this point, the village officials make contact and request protection for the move into a friendly area. The move is often hectic, but the decision of what to take poses little problem. Well, the Viet Cong has left them nothing of value. The Marines have provided amphibious tractors and men to ride shotgun on a long, arduous journey down the many miles of hostile waterways. At Journey's End, a safe area for the traveler and his family, a new home, and with it, an opportunity for a better way of life. Mao Tse Tung writes that the people are the water in which the partisan fish swim. But as this great body of water begins to recede, the gorilla, like the fish, must strangle and die. Each friend we make in these war-torn villages of the Vietnamese countryside shrinks that body of water, the old man who just waits patiently, hopefully.  These and thousands of others are no longer drops of water in that communist sea. Many of these people are now our friends. Their friendship and help are vital for the final victory in Vietnam. United States Marines believe this and have pledged their all-out systems to defeat hunger, fear, and disease. The war within a war.


Life with Luigi, a new comedy show created by Cy Howard. I'm starring that celebrated actor, Mr. J. Carol Nash, with Alan Reed as Miss Wally. Luigi Vasco left Italy to start his new life in America. He promised his mother that he would write and tell her about his adventures. So now let's read Luigi's letter as he writes to Mama Vasco in Italy. Since I'm in America, I'm becoming more and more like a real American.  But I'm going to understand about the life insurance.   But now I'm here more than a year and I'm realize how foolish I was. Life insurance is a very important. When a man dies, an insurance company is a give-as-a-wife enough for money so she can afford a new husband. Here in America, they got all kinds of insurance for people.  Mama me, no matter what the trouble happens to the American, he must get the rich. Maybe Pasquale's right, I should have a life insurance policy. Well, I'm going to go to my night school to class now and ask my teacher Miss Pauling what is she's a takeout. Quiet class, quiet, all right, let's come to attention. Now I'll call the roll. Mr. Basco. Here. Mr. Harwood. Here. Mr. Olson. Here. Mr. Schultz. Here. Ms. Party. Here. I love that. I figure as long as you are calling the roll, let's go wholeheartedly. Thank you, fellow boobers. Now class, let's get on with our history lesson. We'll begin with famous rivers. Now who can tell me the discoverer of the Hudson? Anybody? I know Miss Pauling. I know Miss Pauling. I know Miss Pauling. I know Miss Pauling. You know what? We all know Miss Pauling but we don't make such a fuss about it. We've got a show off. Disregard him, Mr. Olson. Please give us the answer. There's a pleasure, Miss Pauling. Henry Hudson discovered the Hudson River. Good. Now will somebody tell me when the Hudson was discovered? Mr. Basco? 1949. Oh no. Where did you get that idea? I may hear everybody talk about a 1949 Hudson. The correct answer is Henry Hudson discovered the Hudson River in 1619. That's excellent, Mr. Olson. Quick as a flash.  Now Mr. Basco, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. A very simple question. Who discovered America? Columbus. What year? 1942. How many ships? Three. What were their names? Remember, she's giving him the third degree for something Columbus Day. The show's forgotten into you today. I don't know. It must be the Jekyll coming out of my hide. Mr. Basco, why couldn't you answer that simple question? Did Mr. Schultz confuse you? Oh no, Mr. Pauling. I was thinking about something else. Pasquale tells me every good American has got a life insurance policy. Is that the true? True. True is the day you're born. LaVigia fellas got to have insurance to protect his family. That's right, Mr. Basco. Life insurance is very important. Yeah, I carry $10,000 insurance, LaVigia. My wife collects all that money if something happens to me and I go. Well, what are you waiting for? Go! Mr. Schultz, I've got a family here in America. I'm adjusting to my mom in Italy. Well, LaVigia, you don't need such a big policy. Take out for a thousand, two thousand maybe.  That means that she collects the money. Well, this policy, is it going to cost me a lot of money? No, no, no, LaVigia. I just took mine out. Your policy, they shouldn't cost more than $30 or $40. Oh, well, thank you, class, for this information. I think I'm going to let the Pasquale help me take out a policy. That's right, LaVigia. Yeah, and do it now. Like we say when we are making hamburgers, don't put off for tomorrow what you can shop in today. LaVigia, my friend. I love LaVigia, I love, I love. I love Pasquale. LaVigia, I wanted you to meet Mr. Bighton, my insurance man. He's the older friend of the family. Mr. Bighton, this is the fella I was telling you about. He's the older friend of the family. Mr. Bighton, this is the fella I was telling you about. Mr. Bighton, this is the fella I was telling you about, the Luigi Basko. Ah, it's a great pleasure to meet you, Mr. Basko. I handle all of Mr. Pasquale's insurance, health, life, accent, auto, fire, burglary. Pasquale, what before you want to show a burglary?  Yes. Well, that's what I'm here for, to clear up any questions you may have. Now, Mr. Basko, I want you to know that my life insurance company ensures only the highest types of risks, what we call class A. Now, from what Mr. Pasquale has told me about you, I think we can put you in that category. See, Luigi, I'm a big shot see with these people. Thank you, Mr. Pasquale. And a thank you, Mr. Bighton. Quite all right. Have a cigar. No thanks, I'm a no smoke. Take, Luigi, take. While you're still alive, take everything. Well, all right. Lied? Thank you. By the way, I got this lighter as a gift from my company. Sold $100,000 worth of life insurance, 1943. Well, that's a very... Nice. Luigi, don't die yet. Wait until you sigh. Yes, those 15 cents in Port of Levanas are pretty strong. Now, Mr. Basko, if you don't mind, I'd like to get a little idea of what you were thinking about in the line of insurance. Well, my friends are advising me I should take out $1,000 policy. What's the matter, Mr. Bighton? You're not the smoke and the cigar. Luigi, you insulted Mr. Bighton. He's a high class insurance man. You're talking with a cheaper $1,000 policy. Maybe you'd better explain it to him, Mr. Bighton. Glad to. Now, Mr. Basko, there's nothing really complicated about it. Take the cheapest kind. For instance, term life insurance. You pay for a certain number of years. The premium is very small, but, of course, if you're alive at the end of that time, you get nothing back from the company. You mean that the company's angry with me because I'm a still-levener? No, the company likes you. The company wants you to live long. The longer, the better. Oh, thank you, Mr. Bighton. Thank you, Mr. Basko. Thank you, Mr. Bighton. And a good health to you, too, Mr. Bighton. Thank you, Mr. Basko. Thank you, Mr. Basko. Thank you, Mr. Bighton. And a good health to you, too, Mr. Basko. Thank you, Mr. Luigi. Thank you, Mr. Basko. This is a cigar. It's making me feel pretty good. A little dizzy. Mr. Basko, how's about us some beer? That's a nice, slow-brewed acme. Thank you, Mr. Basko. Thank you, Mr. Bighton. Oh, don't thank me. Thank you, Mr. Basko. Thank you, Mr. Luigi. Mr. Luigi, stop the coughing like that.  Yeah, that's quite all right. Now, term insurance, Mr. Basko, has its advantages, but it is a rather limited kind of policy. Rather more in line with your needs would be the Ordinary Life, or Straight Life Plan, which gives the advantages of full protection without the expensive burden of high premiums associated with a limited payment or endowment type of insurance program. You understand that? Huh? You've got to talk as slow to him, Mr. Bighton. He's a far and a born alien. He doesn't know how to stand. I've got to explain to him. You see, Luigi, there's four kinds of insurance, but they all got one thing in common. You've got to die at the end. Well, uh... Not exactly, Mr. Basko. What do you mean exactly? You've got a new type of policy that'll pay a man when he's a half-dead? No, no, Mr. Basko. However, the sincerity behind your questions makes me wonder how a man of your caliber can be satisfied with a mere $1,000 policy. Well, uh... $2,000? $2,000?  What do you think, Mr. Bighton? Let me light your cigar again, Mr. Basko. Now the insurance I have in mind for you is one which combines the best elements of saving, security, and... Luigi, I'm certainly proud of you.  Thank you, Mr. Bighton. Hey, that's Mr. Bighton. He's a very nice man. Imagine, he's gonna give me two cigars for nothing.  I'ma got you to thank Mr. Bighton. He'll give me such a good recommendation. It's all right, Luigi. Uh, by the way, you know how much of the premium is it gonna cost you on this policy? Well, I didn't ask. But all soon as you tell me, in the class, it's about $30, $40 a year. $30, $40 a year? Uh-huh.  I've got a news for you. News? The premium on your policy is close to $2,000 a year. $2,000? I'ma not gonna pay this money. That's impossible. You gotta pay. You signed a contract with insurance. The companies are like a marriage contract. What do you say? What they can do to me if I'm gonna pay? Companies sue you for non-support. And worse than that, when you signed the papers, was a carbon in the back is a mean of two copies. So what if it was a two copies? Luigi, you're guilty of a double indemnity. Come on, my man. Pascuale, why are you letting me take out of such a big policy? Luigi, once some milk is a spelt, there's no trying to push it back in the bottle. Luigi, what would you say if I was to tell you the name of a place that would give you all of the money to pay off your insurance previously? Pascuale, what's the name of this place? The Rosa Finance Company. Nothing at all. I'ma not gonna marry a finance company. I'm asking you to marry my daughter, Rosa. She's a bigger than a finance company.   I didn't want to tell you this, but you know what you started, you signed your mom as a name, as a beneficiary? What?  That's a violation of the Atlantic Charter. Pascuale, wait. How am I gonna tell him to stop with the insurance? It's too late. Don't you know what it's mean when an immigrant does a stop at his insurance? They export you. Why? Because the Congress has spent all these years making a fire and a policy, and are you cancelers? Of course not. All right. Then what's to happen? Right away, Washington is a call its ambassador in Italy. He's a pack-up with a little briefcase. Italy is a beg-of-the-stay. He's a say, no, that's the end of the marshal of plans. Pascuale, all of this is because I'ma take out an insurance policy. That's all right. Are you traitor? Traitor. Pascuale, what's gonna happen to me? Everything. Besides that, when you get your citizenship papers, FBI is gonna stamp on the bottom. Traitor can't get a library card. Luigi, my fellow pooper. Well, how did you make it out with insurance? Schultz, I'ma just to take out a policy for a $50,000. $50,000? Him and who's gonna pay it? Is Rita Haverz gonna introduce you to the Alicanza store? Schultz, sir. Schultz, the place is an attempted joke.  He's gonna tell insurance a man I'm a bigger man.  Oh, that scheming Pascuale. Like, always he's got you all for shimmel. Luigi, why, why, why do you listen to everything Pascuale does? I'ma no listen. You're always believing that big faker. You believed him once when he told you lifesavers had holes in the middle so the tongue could have a place to rest between legs. Schultz, and you believed him when he told you he could get you a jar of Milani's 1890 French dressing for 1885. No, Luigi, you better stop taking short haircuts. I think the barber is snipping off your brains. I wish I knew what kind of a contract you signed so I could maybe help you out of it. I should, sir, I'ma feel it terrible. Now I'ma gotta go to the insurance doctor for the examination. The doctor? The doctor? The doctor raised Luigi into my head. An idea just pooped. What is yours? Luigi, Luigi, no matter, no matter what kind of policy you signed for, if you fail the doctor's examination, then they don't want you. But, Schultz, you mean I should tell the doctor I'ma sick? Sure, sure, and I got a wonderful way to convince the doctor. How? When you go into his office, walk in lying down. But, Schultz, so what I can say to the doctor to make him think I'ma sick? You don't know what to say? Stop any fella on the street and ask him what he told his draft board. Come on, on the way down, I'm gonna coach. Thanks, Schultz. Oh, he's all the way the trouble. Oh, no, what, Luigi, be like me. Smile! Everybody's got trouble. You know what they say, don't you? Everything in life meets with disaster. Today's blue jay is tomorrow's corn plaster. Oh, my rheumatism is killing me. Don't be nervous. Whatever the doctor asks you for diseases, you got it. Schultz, I'ma never tell a lie. This time you gotta tell a lie. Besides, you ain't lying. I'm not remembering what I told you. Right, Schultz?  Please, please, let me hear you cough. No, Luigi, you are coughing too healthily. Put a little hack into it. All right, Mr. Basko, doctor will see you now. How do you do, Mr. Basko? Hello, doctor. Sounds like a nasty cough. Have you always coughed like that? No, only when I'm a breathing. I woke up in this weather, it's quite garbage. I woke up this morning with a lulu myself. Listen to this. It then again coughing and sneezing may be due to an allergy like hay fever. That's what I'ma got there. You have hay fever? Sure, every time I'ma eat the hay I'ma get a fever. Mr.  Now, if you don't mind, I'll fill out this insurance form while I examine you. Doctor, there's no use to examine it. Believe in me, I'm a sick man. Now, let doctor find out for himself. You stick out your tongue. After you? Of course. Oh, now, I'ma got too much respect for the doctor. Oh, come now. Let's have your tongue. How am I going to take it off? Just open your mouth. That's right. Doctor, what are you looking for? That's so bad. Well, we look to see if your tongue has a coat. Oh, doctor, my tongue has always got a coat, but I'ma take it off for the summer. Well, the tongue looks fine. It does? Yes. Now, let's listen to the old ticker. I'm sorry, doctor, you can't. Why not? I'ma leave my watch at home.   Perfect, perfect. Why, I'd insure that hard for a million dollars. Now, how are your lungs and liver? I'm going to eat that, doctor. I'ma rather have a lamb chop. Oh, you big executives are great kidders. How's your blood pressure? Very high, doctor, very high. Really? Yesterday I was in a gas station and I had a 50 pounds in my right arm. Yeah. Ever have neuralgia? Oh, no, doctor. Well, that's good. I'ma still suffer from a diolgalgia. And, uh, how about varicose vein? Oh, yes, sir, doctor. My veins are very close. Hey, look, are you fooling or do you mean it?  I'm a very sick man. Well, let me test your hearing and stand back there and turn around. Now, uh, do you hear this sound? Is that the sound? Yeah. I'ma not hear it. How about this one? No, no, I hear it, king. Then how about this? I'ma not hear it. Doctor, I'ma not hear it. Well, you'll have to shout louder. That whistle almost blew my brains out. Doctor, I'ma tell you. There's no use of doing this on me. Yes, yes. Well, I'll be the judge of that. Have you ever had any surgery? What, a re? Surgery. Operations. Ever had your appendix out? Oh, yes. When I was a little boy, I'ma have my appendix out and my tonsils out and my adenoids out and I'ma go all the bladder out. All that? That's right, doctor. I was the emptiest kid on the block. Eh, Mr. Basko, did you ever hear of a hypochondriac? I'ma have that taken out too, doctor. Mr. Basko, I happen to think you're one of the healthiest specimens I've seen in a long time, but it may be that you're suffering from hallucination. That's right, doctor. Everything in me is a loose. Now look, let me do the talking. Lie down. What a doctor. Lie down and stick out your arm. I just want to take a specimen of your blood. Yeah. Then I'll tie this around your arm. Oh! Air must stop a closer scatter to faces of pale eyes of bloodshot.  Mr. Basko, I don't make you fun. I was a just thinker as I'm gonna buy an assurance to doctor. First to his a bang on my nose with a hammer. Then he's a sticker printer's enemy. He's a take out of some of blood to put a drops into my eyes. He's a shoot the water into my ears. When he's a get through it to me, then I'ma really need a doctor. Luigi, all of the doctors are there the same way? Not to this, Dr. Baskoale. He's a tell me he used to give physicals into the army. That's a terrible... What's the part of all of Baskoale? The doctor is a pronounce me living. I'm a pastor policy. Now I'm gonna have to pay for it. Luigi, you're trapped. There's a no doubts about it. Only way out of for you is to make a successful marriage. Baskoale. Don't talk, I accept your proposal. Rosa! Rosa! Rosa!  Hello to Luigi. Wonderful a couple of together.  Rosa, what do you say to your little lovebirds? The insurance and troubles is all over. I've been so happy. So Mr. Baskoale. Well, am I insurance a man? Mr. Baskoale, I've got something to tell you. And I've got something to tell you. I'm gonna have the pleasure of being with these young fellows of previous. What? Yes, he's coming into my family, marrying my daughter. He's gonna be my son-in-law. Stop, stop, I've heard enough. Mr. Baskoale, I'm an old friend of the family. Don't let this man marry your daughter. What? I looked him up and he's an imposter. Mr.  Yeah, wait. I won't stay here one minute with him. I'm an old friend of the family, so I canceled the policy. But... Cost you nothing. Bye, Mr. Baskoale. What's to happen? Mr. Baskoale, Luigi, where are you going? Back into my sofa, squally. I'm gonna lie down after the examination. But Luigi, what about Rosa? I was gonna pay you premium. Maybe you're gonna get married? No, Papa. I don't want to be your son. Just to take on me as an old friend of the family. Life with Luigi is a Sy Howard production, and is written by Mac Benhoff and Lou Dermanin, directed by Mac Benhoff. J. Carol Nash is starred as Luigi Basko with Alan Reed as Pasquale. Hans Conrader Schultz, Mary Shipp as Miss Balding, and Jody Gilbert as Rosa. Music is under the direction of Lynn Murray.


Well, mother whose son died one year ago this month from carbon monoxide poisoning while ice fishing on Leech Lake is speaking about his death publicly for the first time in hopes it will save another family the heartache of losing a loved one. Denise Johnson joined numerous safety officials today to media availability to encourage safety as the Minnesota ice fishing season continues. Johnson's son Jared Johnson was ice fishing in an ice house converted from a camper trailer with propane heaters inside. The heaters were not properly ventilated causing a deadly buildup of the odorless, colorless gas that killed them. I would never want any family to suffer what we have suffered. Jared left behind two children. He left behind a gazillion friends. This has destroyed his dad. It's broken me. It's a really tough thing. And it's an easy, not too expensive fix. And I would hope that anyone who sees this, anyone who knows of Jared's death, of anyone else's, I would hate to see this happen to any family because it's not necessary. It never needs to happen. Carbon monoxide poisoning killed 64 people in Minnesota between 2011 and 2015 according to the most recent information from the Minnesota Department of Health. After this month, a woman was killed and four others hospitalized after they were poisoned by carbon monoxide while ice fishing in southern Minnesota. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


Fellow Nigerians, the first 18 months have been some of the most difficult periods in the history of Nigeria. They truly have been, with killings across the country, secessionist agitations in the south and multiple school adoptions and terrorism in the north. But President Mohammedu Buhari says Nigeria is going on the offensive. We are taking the fight to our enemies from all angles and we are winning. The Nigerian armed forces have recruited over 17,000 personnel across all ranks. Furthermore, I have also approved for the Nigerian police force to recruit 10,000 police officers annually over the next six years. The president also disclosed that 8,000 members of Bukoharam have surrendered and a federal lawmaker has been identified as a sponsor of his secessionist group. The recent arrests of Namdeh Khanu and Sandeh Adeymo and the ongoing investigation being conducted have revealed certain high-profile finances behind these individuals. We are vigorously pursuing these finances, including one identified as a serving member of the National Assembly. The ban on Twitter will be lifted if the social media meets some demands. These are A, national security and cohesion, B, registration, physical presence and representation, C, fair taxation, D, dispute resolution and E, local content. Five million Nigerians have been vaccinated against COVID-19 and Nigeria is working to ensure it produces its own vaccines, not just for COVID but for future pandemics. Already, the Nigerian sovereign investment authority is raising a 200 million United States dollars fund for this initiative. President Buhari concluded the broadcast by saying no administration since 1999 has done what he has done in six years to put the country on the right track. For Plus TV Africa, Ngoziqa or HSE. We now have joining us and plus news now, a public affairs analyst, Ambrose Ebuke. Thanks for joining us, Ms. Ebuke. Ms. Ebuke, can you hear us clearly? Yeah, I can hear you. Thanks for joining us. I want us to start with your views on the president's speech. Some people have said it was uninspiring. Do you agree with that? I don't think, no, the president has a slow way of talking. So I don't know what is uninspiring about it, whether it is the slow pace of talking or the content. For me, it is content. Nigeria should not be talking about our independence speech. Africa is to one year. It should not be about the content of what the president has said. We should not be talking about successionist groups. We should not be talking about arrest of people. I mean, those are routine fundamental things that the nation does. We have left where we were in the 70s. Nigeria was a power block globally. Nigeria in the 70s took stand against the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom was a protein appetite in South Africa. Nigeria stood against it and formed alliance with the Soviet block and ensured that the fourth appetite will stand still against Western interests. That is the kind of height we attained 40 years ago, 50 years ago. For us to come back when we are now celebrating 61 years, we are talking about mundane things. So it is a sad comment on our country that at 61, instead of talking about going to the moon, instead of talking about scientific breakthroughs just yesterday, I was reading an article of how China has created an artificial song that is uttered by the natural song so that they can use it to build their solar renewable energy so that it cannot be discussed and have it all time-round. These are where countries are heading to. Countries are exploring artificial intelligence and other scientific breakthroughs to ensure things like 3D technology. People are printing, want to print art and other parts of the body, want to print liver by just 3D scientific method. These are where countries are looking at. And here we are talking about things that are very consequential when it comes to global economy. So it is not going to be... For any Nigerian who is passionate about the country, these kinds of speeches is not what we want from our leaders. We want to know, as independents, between the last time and the previous, how many jobs have been created, for example? We want to hear about how many investors have we got up. We want to hear how many FDIs, for the rate investment we have got in. We want to hear the rise of our GBP. We want to hear that we have paid our debts. We want to hear that export potentials have increased and we are exporting more. We want to hear that our local refineries are now working with the food capacity and we are now exporting refined petroleum food. We want to hear that power supply is now uninterrupted. We want to hear that there is possible water across the rural and urban centers in Nigeria. We want to hear that our routes have been fixed and that we are no more dying because of... On the side, okay. I guess the things that the President spoke about represent where we are as a country. And like you've said, you might be a little disappointing that after 61 years, these are the things that we are still speaking about. But the current administration has had six years to put us on a different trajectory. Of course, as the country moves forward, would you say that they have, in somehow, some way, created avenues which with Nigeria can grow and be better than it has been in the last 60 years? Well, when you make your arithmetic calculation, which is the same for 61 minus 66 years, you will find that it is very, very negligible. So the administration has tried what it ought to do, but we have known that the decay of the last years before they came in, when it suffered that, I think it got 55 years. So the Nigerian problem has been going on for a few years. So the efforts that have made in the last six years have not been able to obtain the things we have noticed in the last 35 years. The problem of Nigeria is not about the regimes, whether it's six years or eight years. The problem of Nigeria is that there are no systematic advancements. It is all about, it's a staccato arrangement. We have not been able to systematically grow. So this regime comes, does its own thing, another regime comes its own thing, and then that is where we are in the top seat of the situation. So I think what I had, for example, the growth we made in the 70s, when oil boom was there, where we were having, we were extending $2 to a Naira, if we are sustained that growth by now, then we're talking about having an economy that is even bigger than that of the United States of America. So we are judging this based on the next six years, by two years they're complete, they're tenor, they go, and then maybe there will be another policy somersault. The one thing I would give to this administration, which is very key, is that this administration had continued the projects of the past administration. And this is not normal in Nigeria, because most regime, the road administration is where they're from, tends to discontinue what these predecessors have done, and then all create their own project. That's just like the rail line project has gone on, things like the, some of the projects that were brought up by the past administration were continued, and that is where we can also, you know, say that this administration has done well. Beyond that, both of the debt, the administration is plunging into more and more debt, and that has to be looked into. Why are we borrowing to fund, we were saying we are going to fund capital projects, but we have said that we have borrowed money in this administration to pay salaries. We have shared, we've patrated funds to pay salaries. So these are not things we could borrow from. So we need to, you know, administration has like one and a half years to go. I think that can still do better. All right, like you mentioned, you know, some of the things that we're spoken about in the speech aren't things that we should be focusing on now, but unfortunately that's where we are. So I want us to look at one of the things just before we go, one of the things that he mentioned, and of course it is the succession of Sagittators. He may have mentioned that, you know, Namdi Kano and Sunday Boho in particular, very likely, you know, from what they found, have people financing them, you know, a particular person in the National Assembly. So I want you to speak with regards to the succession of Sagittators. Was Nigeria always headed in this direction? And, you know, what would you expect from the president now that he said that they know that, you know, a person in the National Assembly was sponsoring these Sagittators? And one of the things I would say that we have to work with is the root cause of all these things. For example, why are the citizens of France, why are they not agitating for succession? Why are the citizens of the United States not agitating for succession? Why are the citizens of Ghana not agitating for succession? Where you have a country that works well for you, you know, agitate for succession, because nobody wants to live something that is good. Therefore, the government should be looking at what are the root causes of these agitations? And it's only when we're able to approve the root causes that we'll be able to tackle the issue headlong. And then we also have to look at the both solutions, the international diplomacy and governance, we have what we call the stick and carrot method. So while we are supplying this tip, we also look at the carrot. How do we now be able to use a diplomatic solution as well as there are just like what is happening in the Northeast? A lot of these sectionalists that I got the book around people, I've been sent overseas that have been integrated into the society. Some of them were sent overseas to apply as good labor and they own a Nigerian idea and they have been integrated. So such political solutions should also be looked into. Because the country, when it's on fire, it doesn't favor the successionist, it doesn't favor the masses, it doesn't favor the government in any way. It is only a peaceful atmosphere that can engender economic growth for any country. So the priority of the government should be to ensure that we have a peaceful atmosphere so that our economy can grow and the country can be at peace. Okay. I'm Russi Bokeh. Always a pleasure speaking with you. Thank you for your time this evening and of course, we wish you a very interesting weekend ahead. Thank you for having me. Absolutely. Hello, hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.