today, and it is right that that is part of the framework within which the review is set. Kelp forests are marine priority features with enormous importance in our marine ecosystem in any practice, whether it is fishing, farming or harvesting that inhibits regrowth or reproduction is simply out of the question now. This Parliament has agreed time and again that sustainability is an absolute. For one thing, it makes business sense to reassure John Lamont if she was here, she is not anymore, but also for the sake of our environment and our climate change ambition. At a time when our seas are under pressure from climate change and it is the forefront of our minds with this bill going forward for climate change, any new industry must be guaranteed in its sustainability. We are still at a frustratingly early stage of considering the benefits of blue carbon sequestration, but we know enough to understand that it will be important to have a helping hand in tackling climate change and that that should be enforced and not diminished. We know that coastal erosion and sea level rises will be an increasingly greater threat to communities and infrastructure who live by the sea. The kelp is a natural barrier to the effects of storm damage. We also know that kelp forest provides an important feeding ground for some of our most endangered rare seabirds that are disappearing at a devastating rate, and we know that our existing fishing industry and other industries such as marine tourism rely on kelp forests to play host to juvenile fish for the fishing communities and in order to replenish the stocks and keep their own industries sustainable. Marine protections can often fall foul out of sight, out of mind, more so than conservation issues on land. Healthy ecosystems affect us all, but especially coastal communities who are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Those risks may be harder to grasp than the positive idea of a multi-million pound new industry, but they are vitally important as a setting for the future. Labour supports the bill and sets out to do it. It is appropriate delivery of the Smith commission recommendation and provides a framework for a more progressive management of the Crown Estate assets for the future of us all in Scotland. I thank you and I call Andy Wightman for the green's four minutes. I thank you very much. Cabinet secretary is right that this is indeed a historic occasion. Scotland's Crown Estate was further back than 1066, though. The ninth century has its origins when Scotland was a unified kingdom and, of course, the western isles were only added in 1266 and the northern isles with their own distinctive traditions and matters in 1472. That has been a long road to this bill. I remember a late night taxi ride to Edinburgh from Glasgow some years ago in the company of Henry McLeish, the minister who was in fact in charge of steering the Scotland Act on the Statute Book in 1998. He told me of the frustrations of trying to secure devolution of the Crown Estate, a task that he had to abandon at that time. It is worth remembering why, in 1999, the Parliament should have gained full control over the property rights, revenues and management of the Crown. Those historic property rights—the four-shore, gold and silver, the seabed—are all defined by Scots law. Other Crown property rights are not part of the Crown Estate, including Bonavocantia, Ultima Aries and Treasure Trove, but are also defined by Scots law's rights to which to this day are administered by the Crown Office in Edinburgh, where the Lord Advocate also upholds the common law rights under the guardianship of the Crown over the four-shore. In 1833, management of those assets that later comprised the Crown Estate were transferred to London from Edinburgh. Importantly and significantly, they did not form part of the civil list that had been established in 1760 through the surrender of the English Crown revenues. Thus, those historic rights remain constitutionally, legally and politically distinctive, since they are the rights of the Scottish Crown defined by Scots law that should have formed part of the 1998 Scotland Act. Some years later, it became very clear that the Crown Estate commissioners, whose lack of transparency and malign influence as a body corporate has blighted much of rural and marine Scotland, had secured the support of the palace and the treasury to block any reform. Although the property rights were devolved in 1999, the revenues were not. I want to put on record my thanks to Scotland's local authorities, whose 2006 Crown Estate review group report did so much to prompt this debate, as well as did the inquiry of the UK Treasury, the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons and the Scottish Affairs Committee. In 2014, the Smith commission eventually recommended that management and revenues be devolved and that management should be further devolved to Scotland's local authorities. Despite UK Government guarantees that Smith would be implemented in full, legislative competence for the revenues of the Crown Estate has not been devolved. The bill is not the bill that Greens would have wished to see. It is predicated on a flawed devolution settlement. It is based on the assumption that the Crown Estate is some kind of coherent suite of assets that by law must be maintained as an estate and land on behalf of the Crown. The Crown Estate is a feudal relic. It is an ad-hoc assembly of rights, including everything from gold and silver, a lock-up garage in the new town of Edinburgh and the island of Rockall. Our goal as a Parliament should be to sweep away this anachronism and not to perpetuate it within a framework of complicated management and delegation powers. It is also a colonial relic. Rockall was the last act of colonialism by the UK, preceded on a royal warrant modelled on that used by Captain Cook to steal Australia. Amendments to the effect that I lodged at stage 2 and 3 were ruled out of scope. Such amendments included the repeal of the Royal Minds Act 1424, the oldest Scottish statute still in force, which reserved natural occurring gold and silver to the Crown and is the origin of their rights and is an act that is perfectly within the competence of this Parliament to repeal. So this debate should remind us that there is unfinished business. We need to legislate, as I hinted earlier in the amendment debate, to modernise the law of the foreshore in the seabed. A report was published by the Scottish Law Commission in 2003. It sits on the shelf gathering dust. Had it been enacted, we would now, by now, have the Sea, Shore and Inland Water Scotland Act, which would have enshrined the statutory right to, among other things, make sand castles, beach comb, sunbathe and have picnics on the shore and foreshore. It would have also given crofters the statutory right to gather kelp from the foreshore where that was in their crofting lease. It would have put the ownership of the seabed on foreshore on a statutory footing. All of that can yet happen, but, nevertheless, for the moment, we will be voting for the modest reforms outlined in the Scottish Crown Estate Bill. Thank you very much. I thank the cabinet secretary and the Government for bringing this measure forward for us. Andy Wightman said for many of us that this is what the late John Smith used to call unfinished business. Andy Wightman said that I am at the radical end of my lot on this kind of issue. I would have abolished it outright, but we did not get that chance. Reform is reform, and some reform is better than no reform. I dug out a member's debate from 2007, in which a number of people spoke, including Alistair Allen, Liam McArthur, Jamie McGregor, Rob Gibson, and the then Minister Stuart Stevenson. In that debate, I suggested that we might need to rock the boat. Mr Stevenson said in his wind-up, I say to Mr Scott that, if necessary, we will rock the boat. On that principle, we have not rocked it far enough, but we have done some rocking, and there the analogy will stop before it gets lost in itself or sunk, I suppose, might be the other way to put it. There are two basic points that I want to make about this. The Smith commission process did allow people, on a cross-party basis, to look at areas that we knew needed to be addressed. In the context of the Crown Estate, again, we could have gone a lot further, and it would have been from some of our perspectives very splendid to have done that. We did make, again on that, in that all-party sense, a real proposal that the Government has now begun to give effect to. Of course, there is more to be done when it comes to net proceeds. I will be interested to see what the definition of net versus gross is, so no doubt there will be on-going discussions with that in how the revenues will be delivered. However, I recognise that, at home in Shetland, there is now, or in the process, a marine pilot scheme involving Shetland's Council and the Crown Estate Scotland body over the future of Sulem Vaw. That is an area that has not been available to a wide range of marine uses because of the oil and gas industry since the Sulem Vaw terminal opened formally back in the late 1970s. That is potentially a very exciting development for salmon farming, for mussel farming, for inshore fisheries and in various other areas as well. That is positive, and we will look to see how that comes with that. I am also grateful for the measures to do today on trust ports. I speak with the direct interest of being a former chairman of Lerwick Harbour Trust, as it was then. The fundamental point about trust ports is simply this. It is the best financial model that I can think of in the public system today, that it has to be run on a commercial basis, but all the monies that it makes are reinvested in its facilities. That is a model that I would commend to the Government of any persuasion across a number of areas, where it is trying to find a financial model that allows a proper commercial focus on what needs to happen to serve the customer, in port's case, the people who use keys and need services, but in that sense retains the profits into the organisation to invest for the future. That seems to me powerful and appropriate. I will make one remark, if I may, on the debate that we had on kelp farming today. It just strikes me that regulation is there, underneath legislation, to allow for an appropriate assessment of any process, whether it is defined, as Johann Lamont did earlier on, as industrial or not industrial. I do not think that we got that right today. It is not really appropriate, as John Scott rightly said, to start hauling things back at stage 3. What should have happened on that? It is a really serious issue. What should have happened on that is that it should have been properly assessed at a much earlier stage and taken forward in that way. I hope that Parliament reflects on that for the future, because that was not our finest moment today in terms of how to pass primary legislation. The final point is simply this. I mentioned Sandra Lawrence earlier on. She said on Friday, when she retired after 44 years with the Port Authority, that in terms of her advice to people who serve in the future, it is not about attracting the different customers to come and locate themselves in our port, because the port is nothing without the customer. Now and again in politics, we should remember useful phrases like that, when we are passing this kind of primary legislation. Thank you very much. I can give the open speakers five minutes. I call Stuart Stevenson, followed by Edwin Mountain. I thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary said that it is the first time that we legislate on the Crown Estate. I am sure that that is true, but it is certainly not the first time that we have debated. As Tavish Scott has just reminded us, on 1 November, he held a member's debate. Indeed, in 2012, David Stewart had a member's debate in this Parliament on 18 April. I am sure that there will be other instances. Again, I happened to be the minister who responded to that particular debate. It is not a subject that we have not debated before, discussed before, both on the floor and in the corridors of Parliament. Andy Wightman took us back to the 900s. I did not realise that it went quite far back. I certainly found the Lords of Auditors of the Exchequer were established as a court in the 1500s to look after what is now the Crown Estate. It is a very long history. The particular things about the bill that we are likely to pass in a short period of time. One of the things that is simply not attracted to any significant amendment—it was amended a little bit at stage 2—was section 11, which is the duty to obtain market value. It basically picks up the existing provision. The manager of the Scottish Crown Estate must not make any of the following transactions for consideration less than market value, but then goes on to qualify that by saying that if the manager is satisfied with the relevant transaction, it is likely to contribute to the promotional improvement in Scotland of economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing, environmental wellbeing or sustainable development. That is a breakthrough provision, frankly, because it recognises that the assets that we are talking about that we are managing and that we are allowing others to manage here should be managed for the common good, not simply to deliver an economic asset that flows into the structures of government at all its various levels. I am particularly pleased with that particular section of the bill as it has been passed, although we have still got section 7 duty to maintain and enhance value. The Crown Estate has a long history. I have been here a fair pile, not as long as quite everybody. John Scott, for example, sitting looking around the Chibw's here before I was so established Scott. In the earlier days of this Parliament, I do not think that we could really say that the Crown Estate engaged with members of this place to very useful purpose. I had a long-standing constituency case about persuading the Crown Estate to do something about a harbour at Crivy. It took something like five or six years before we finally concluded that it was actually their responsibility and then a good deal longer before they actually did anything about it. However, I think that the Crown Estate, if there were anything, would passively malign or passively neglectful. They were slightly better than other people if the Presiding Officer allows me time. I have to say that I object to your use of the word malign. I objected to Mr Wightman's use of the word malign in the description of the Crown Estate managers who were entirely doing their job as the best-so-fit and within the confines of the law entirely. I know many of those people directly and they are men and women of honour and are declaring that interest. However, I particularly object to the use of the word malign in that regard and in their respect. I am sorry to be awkward about it again. I have already raised this point with Mr Wightman and I feel annoyed that it should have to be raised again. Mr Steves? Mr Scott is perfectly entitled to make the point that he has just made. I will, however, say that I was pointing at the organisation rather than the individuals with whom I have always had the best of relationships and felt as Mr Scott did that, as individuals, they were doing the best. However, the framework that constrained them did not let them do anything other than, in many instances, act in a way which one could describe as malign. However, let us not follow out about a single word that is simply not worth the hassle. There were private landowners around Scotland who were much, much worse. We used to go on holiday to Sutherland. The vestiges who were domiciled in Argentina never paid a penny of tax in decades and were much more adverse in the way that they helped with things. I realise that I should be bringing things to a conclusion. Let me just say that this is part of returning power to our communities. The David Stewart debate in April 2012, we all talked to Peter Peacock and of transfers that were made under community land in Scotland. This is part of a process of restoring to the people of Scotland some of the assets that are rightly theirs and control over them. We have not completed the journey, but it is a useful and helpful start. Before I begin, I would like to draw members' attention to my register of interest, in particular to farming. Today's stage 3 debate on the Scottish Crown Estate Bill is another important step in realising the recommendations of the Smith commission. I have listened to some of the comments about the Crown Estate at this stage. I have also listened to some of the tenants on the Crown Estate, especially agricultural tenants, who seem to be perfectly happy with the way things will run in the past and look forward to a continuation in the future. I am pleased that, in every stage of the bill's passage through this Parliament, much of the debate has passed and focused on enabling more local control of assets to local authorities. In other words, devolution. I am a strong supporter of more local control, and I am pleased that there are provisions in the bill that enable the management of some Crown Estate assets to be passed beyond local authorities. What I am cautious about, though, is too much double devolution, which allows the management of what I believe are national assets to such a local level that the national benefits of the assets could be lost. For example, those who lived in landlocked local authorities, as we have heard this afternoon, such as East Renfrewshire and North and South Lanarkshire, could lose out and should not lose out on the benefits of the management of the Crown Estate assets in areas such as the seabed just because they do not have a coastline. After all, the seabed is an asset that benefits all users, not just the islands and coastal authorities. I believe that we must remember that the Crown Estate assets are national assets and, as such, the Scottish Government has a duty to ensure that the assets and benefit do so to the benefit of Scotland as a whole. I believe that the balanced approach that has been taken with the bill, which, with one hand, means more local control and, on the other hand, ensures that Scotland's national assets are managed in the national interest, should be welcomed. However, I do have concerns on the potential selling-off of assets. The last thing that we need to see is a complete break-up of the Crown Estate land in Scotland. I believe that, if assets are disposed of, the Government should consult with the Parliament and will agree with the Parliament how they should be done. I believe that they have singily failed to do in relation to our forests, where they have seen much of the land sold off and not replaced, which was the requirement and the requisite of the consent that Parliament gave when those forests could be sold. The Scottish Conservatives therefore will be watching carefully the Scottish Government and would expect the Government to publish its strategic plan, and there should be robust guidance included in it to ensure that the estate does not become too fragmented. Turning specifically to farming, I would strongly advise the Government to consider how best to manage the assets. They must not be fragmented and they must increase new tenants and young farmers into Scottish agriculture. There are so many young farmers across Scotland who are desperate for tenancies, and the Scottish Government should not let them down by selling off farming assets. They should rather create more opportunities. I believe that the Government needs to learn the lessons from the sale of Ock and Hallrig farmers—a sale that removed rather than created new opportunities for young farmers. Today, I will be voting in favour of stage 3 of the Crown Estate Bill, as it turns the recommendations of the Smith's commission into reality. However, I conclude with a note of caution. With the passing of this bill, the Scottish Government is getting control of some very important assets, and I would urge it to think twice about selling them. I took over the convenership of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee at the end of deliberations on the Crown Estate Bill and was plunged straight in as the stage 2 vote was on the agenda. As we all know, the devolution of the management of funds from the Crown Estate was one positive result of the Smith's commission and provides scope particularly for coastal rural communities to have more say in the benefits from the land in terms of economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing and environmental wellbeing as sustainable development. I commend the committee and the bill team in particular on how the stage 1 evidence process was managed. Through evidence sessions, thorough evidence sessions took place, the wide variety of stakeholders and their evidence helped to make the bill stronger. Feedback from the stakeholder advisory group was extremely positive on how the committee and the bill team operated. I echo what the cabinet secretary's remarks there. I also want to thank Graham Day for the convener at the time for steering that course with the assistance of the committee clerks. At the point of which I took over, I want to say one thing about the process and the issue that dominated the day in which the bill passed stage 2 in the committee. Of course, that is the harvesting of kelp. I tried to intervene many times during the debate on that particular amendment but no member accepted my intervention. I am going to use my time to make the points that I would have made then and cause me considerable discomfort at the time of a new convener, as well as a member. A lot of people do not realise that committee members were being asked to vote on an issue that had not come up as part of the evidence sessions in the committee stage 1 deliberations, which in essence is purely about the management of the current estate. It is never a good look for anyone in our responsible position to make a judgment based on no or at best anecdotal evidence. On that basis, I abstained in that stage 2 amendment vote. As thorough as that stage 1 report was, I did a word search for kelp and I found not one result in the report. Issues around marine horticulture are not simple things. There is nothing in the natural environment as I am finding out by stealth. I still have many questions that I would like to answer around this issue. Getting hundreds of Twitter messages or 38-degrees emails on the issue shows public engagement and passion but it is no substitute for evidence gathering from scientists and stakeholders who note a subject intimately. I had questions on the methods of harvesting. I had questions on the health and safety and, like Joanne Lamont, I had a considerable amount of questions with an importance to the coastal rural economy and I thought that her speech was excellent in bringing that to the debate. I think that all of us should be very careful of ever voting on anything on which we have not had the opportunity to get on the record evidence on. Unintended consequences can only be identified through scrupulous evidence and that is what I think that people of the public expect of us. The Stuart Stevenson is right and if I can offer him a colloquial term that reflects his description of the process that he probably would get away with with the POV, he'll still be gaudy. I'm very uncomfortable today in voting for a subject that I still not had the opportunity to do a detailed inquiry on despite my efforts to do post-stage two investigations of my own. Therefore, I'm very pleased and relieved that the Government is committed to doing its own wide-ranging consultation on the issue. Maybe then we can look at a system that protects species and habitats, but does not cut rural Scotland off from the current and future economic, health and social opportunities of sourcing food, medicines, biopolymers and chemicals in the way that other northern countries are involved in, like Iceland and the Faro Islands. Kelp can be the source of cattle feed that can reduce methane emissions—we're all wanting to look towards something that does that—and biopolymers that can replace plastic packaging, that blights our environment currently, and the pharmaceuticals that could provide cures of relief to multiple ailments and diseases. We need to take a rounded evidence-based approach on this outside of a bill that was not designed to carry this level of detail into a particular area that goes well beyond the area that is included in the Crown of State. I did not come to this Parliament to abstain. I can't stand abstaining—it's not in my nature. I came in to listen, question, deliberate and decide. The commitment of this Government consultation allows me to come off the uncomfortable position of the fence in the knowledge that we will move forward with all the evidence at our fingertips, which is hugely important, so that the right decisions are made with no negative unintended consequences to the marine environment, but also for the people who depend on that environment for their wellbeing, livelihoods and their communities' very existence. That is for me what the devolution of the management of the Crown of State is about. I am not going to ask whether that was an unparliamentary phrase. I am sure to find out at some point. We will move to closing speeches. I call on Mark Ruskell to close to the greens in three minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that we have reached a good point with this bill. We haven't rocked the boat to the point of sinking, perhaps as Tavish Scott and Andy Whiteman would like. It has gone some way to delivering the Smith commission recommendations, not the whole way, but the spirit of the Smith commission is there. I look forward to the further devolution of the rewards and responsibilities of the Crown of State management to democratically elected councils. We have had some debate around sustainable development and around the important duty that is now in the bill, but perhaps too many members, including Mr Scott, see that there is a trade-off, a trade-off between the economy and social objectives and environmental objectives. That is to misunderstand what sustainable development is about. It is about locking in win-wins for future generations. Perhaps we need, in this Parliament, something like the Future Generations Act, which is in place in Wales, which ensures that sustainable development thinking runs through every single piece of legislation that we take forward. It is important that, as we move forward to develop those economic opportunities that grow from the use of our seabed, that sustainability is right at the heart. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the growth of the salmon farming industry, mistakes that were made during the life of this Parliament but which committees failed to scrutinise and we just kept making them over and over again, compounding the environmental impact without actually taking the action that is needed. New sectors such as industrial kelp harvesting need to be understood fully and planned for. That is why the approach that the cabinet secretary is taking of a review of this whole sector is important. It will help to set the vision, which ultimately will deliver the kind of certainty that businesses need to choose the right pathway to commercial success, but that will be against a backstop that is now in the bill, a backstop of sustainability. I recently met with Gillian Martin, a group of ferries kelp farmers, who represent a rapidly expanding industry, which, unlike mechanical harvesting of kelp, is scalable. Farm kelp can produce 10 times the level of usable sugars and proteins per hectare than farm soya. That should give us the sense of the economic opportunity here, but only if we learn the lessons of the past and set the sustainability bar high for industry. Finally, Presiding Officer, I would like to pay tribute to the communities whose voices have been heard loud and clear on this particular issue. I would also like to pay tribute to Spice, of course, who have produced briefings and materials for members to read on this particular issue, commissioned by the committee. From primary schools to professors, from divers to David Attenborough, from the shellfish to the whitefish sector, concerns have been raised. We have remarkable people, scientists who have galvanised their arguments intelligently and articulately. We thank them for that. There will be many more discussions that the Government will now need to have with a wide range of interests on this issue. I look forward to the outcome of those reviews. I speak today as someone who is no longer a member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, but I would like to place on record how much I enjoyed working with the members of the committee on the bill and other topics, and how much I appreciate the work of the clerks and the researchers and all the advice that they gave us, and the people who gave up their time to provide evidence to the committee as we took the bill through stage 1 to reach stage 3. The cabinet secretary has rightly said that this is a historic occasion. It is further devolution of powers to Scotland. It is certainly something that I have always believed that, where there is a clear case for further powers to be devolved to this Parliament in the interests of Scotland, it is something that we should all be supportive of seeing happen. The white man feels that the reforms have been modest, which Tavish Scott also agreed with, but I would say that it is a good start. Let us see where we go as we understand more the opportunities that will come about by having the devolved Crown Estate. I can also pick up on a point, Presiding Officer, that Tavish Scott spoke about when he mentioned the retirement of the chief executive of the Lerwick Port Authority, Sandra Lawson. As Tavish Scott knows, I have spent many a year up in Lerwick in Bresen. I know of the good work that Sandra has done over all those years, so I would join her in congratulating her on being the first Port Authority master in the country and wish her success in whatever she goes on to next. When we speak about assets of the Crown Estate, it is important to remember the diversity and location of those assets, ranging from instantly recognisable buildings and landmarks to farmland, coastline and wilderness environments. Clearly, good management is essential to the effective management of all those areas of the Crown Estate, but it is important that its value is not just seen in the context of commercial gain. I am therefore pleased that the bill sets out to achieve that and does so by stating that the powers and duties of managers should maintain and seek to advance not just the commercial value of the asset and the income arising from that, but, crucially, the manager may do so in a way that contributes to the promotion or improvement of economic development, regeneration, social wellbeing, environmental wellbeing and, importantly, sustainable development. I want to speak about a couple of those assets. First, in terms of tenant farmers, I saw that Edward Mountain said that tenant farmers are quite happy and we should not look to change anything. In the evidence that we took from tenant farmers, it was clear that there is, shall we say, a variety of different quality in terms of the actual physical buildings and farms and the houses themselves. There is a need to empower farmers more. They were clear that they did not expect the local authority to start running the farm, but there is a need to look and I hope that we will be able to look at how tenant farmers have a stronger voice and how they are able to make better representations in order to improve the properties that they are in. I do also take on board the point that Edward Mountain made about wanting to ensure and encourage more young farmers to agree entirely with that. On the issue of kelp, I certainly voted for the amendment at stage 2, because for me it was pretty straightforward that we said that kelp harvesting needed to be sustainable. Why would you not want something to be sustainable? That is why I supported it. It is tough to say that I have done much more reading and understood a lot more about kelp harvesting since stage 2. I certainly have no regrets in voting for the amendment at stage 2. I welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement today to have a further review of the kelp harvesting and opportunities. I close by saying that we have done a good deal of work and welcomed the bill as it will be passed today. Before I call Finlay Carson, I have a brief pause while we ring the division bell. I did not want you to try to speak over the division bell, Mr Carson. Do you want to hear every word that you have to say? I call Finlay Carson to close with the Conservatives, please. I appreciate that. I am pleased to be speaking in tonight's debate as the Crown State Bill in the years at its final stages of the process, having spoken at stage 1 and also as a member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, which has heard extensive evidence on the bill. The Scottish Conservatives have always supported the Crown State Bill in principle and believe that many of the changes made throughout the legislative process will have strengthened the bill for the better. Following on from the Smith commission recommendations and the Scotland Act 2016 and the devolution of management of the Crown State to the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Crown State Bill sets the framework for the long-term management of the Crown State in Scotland. The bill identifies who can become a manager of the Crown State asset, how its management can be devolved within Scotland and what the remit of the new managers could be. I agree that local authorities, including island councils, may be well placed to take on the management of assets and recognise that further devolution to local authorities was a significant recommendation of the Smith commission. However, given the right support, smaller community groups may be a more appropriate body and may be able to more successfully take on the management of the assets. I do not believe that there should be any assumption that local authorities should be by default the most suitable organisation, and I am pleased that this will be the case if the bill is passed tonight. I do believe in community empowerment, but the idea of the council in my own region of Dumfries and Galloway by default certainly being responsible for the management of local Crown State assets is not exactly one that would fill me with confidence. I stressed at stage 1 that is my meaning, and I mean it with the greatest respect at Dumfries and Galloway Council, but I have not heard of any great wish for them to take on the asset at Appleworth estate. Indeed, the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association, while welcoming the devolution of assets, is also firmly of the view that the assets of the four rural assets could be successfully managed by the Scottish Government directly or through a body set up for that specific purpose. That was the recommendation that was brought forward to the clear committee and received cross-party support. It is important to strike the right balance in terms of future management of the Crown State between local and national level. We should recognise that a national body may be the best suited to achieve the desirable outcomes, and therefore in some instances it is right that national management structures remain in place. It is important to know which one the Government recognises that it can be managed at local level and which ones cannot. For example, it is only right and sensible that a national body with a Scotland-wide overview is responsible for the management of offshore renewables, energy-related assets and other cable and pipelines. Recognition should be given to the national significance of the seabed and rightly should be managed nationally, and the bill will ensure that the seabed cannot be sold. However, other assets, once again, and I share the committee view that the bill in some instance should retain provision for devolution to occur where a local authority can demonstrate appropriate expertise and it is considered beneficial from a socio-economic, environmental or sustainable development perspective. With regard to the future sustainability of the Crown State Scotland, I believe that it was important to establish and maintain a list of Crown State assets and associated liabilities. With that requirement to be included in the face of the bill, it would have been important to underpin continuation of the access to cross-subsidisation. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has given us assurance that, while John Scott's amendment was drawn, that will still be the case. Oh boy, if we did not know about kelp before, we certainly know about it now, as do lots or millions of people across Scotland. I sincerely welcome that. However, I have many concerns, not exclusively around environmental pros and cons of commercial harvesting of our natural kelp forests, but more about the appropriateness of the late introduction of the topic of kelp harvesting. Mr Whiteman correctly states points of order or provisions to bring forward amendments and so on, and I have no issue with that, but we should probably ask ourselves whether it was the best way to do it and whether it was appropriate in the Crown State bill. I welcome Mark Ruskell's amendment at stage 2, but only as a probing amendment to bring forward the serious concerns about commercial kelp harvesting and the potential for environmental damage. His amendment did not provide the protection that environmental campaigners might have expected. All kelp is equal, but some kelp is more important than others, because the Crown State kelp might have been protected through this bill, but what about the thousands of square miles of kelp which will not? I would like to think that this Parliament takes decisions regarding environment-based and strong, peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Now, that in no way undermines or undervalues information and evidence that both environmental and community groups of the kelp harvest industry, which was very well received through meetings, email and social media, however, there was simply no time to hold a satisfactory consultation and preferably look at the evidence in committee for full scrutiny under the close watch of the public. That is not how I would like to see hugely important issues such as kelp harvesting dealt with. As my colleague Angus Macdorrell said in the clear committee, this bill is an enabling bill that is not for banning anything. However, I welcome enthusiastically the announcement that a review will be undertaken that could lead to additional commercial opportunities but also protect our well kelp forests. The cabinet minister suggested that the licensing regime was robust, but I would argue that the reason why we are talking about kelp is that it is not. I hope that I will play my role in the licensing reviews of members of the environmental climate change land reform committee. I would like to thank my colleagues across the chamber, committee clerks, witnesses and contributors for giving us to this stage in the bill and to look forward to passing it this evening. Thank you very much. Before I call the cabinet secretary, again, another short pause for the division-beltering, please. Thank you very much. I will call the cabinet secretary to wind up the debate, please. Can I ask members to show a bit of respect to the cabinet secretary? You may learn things about kelp, but you did not know. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful to members across the chamber for that. Excuse me a minute, cabinet secretary. Some people weren't listening to that, and I meant it. Thank you. I am grateful to members across the chamber for their usually normally helpful and constructive contributions to the debate. I wanted to characterise some of them very briefly and not get drawn into some of the detail. John Scott gave us a good lesson on process. Claudia Beamish gave us a lesson on sustainable development. Andy Wightman gave us a lesson on history, as ever, and Tavish Scott also gave us a lesson on Shetland. I think that each of those contributions symptomised quite a lot of the contributions that we got throughout today. I thank all members for the contributions as the bill has progressed through Parliament. I said at the beginning of the debate that this is a historic day. We have been debating the first ever bill in the Parliament on the management of the Scottish Crown and State. The parliamentary process has made improvements to the bill. The Government has listened. We have accepted a number of recommendations that were made by the stage 1 discussions that have been on-going right up to the very last possible second on possible improvements to the bill. I have sought to maintain a consensual approach while retaining focus on the actual purpose of the bill, which is to create appropriate processes to change who can manage a Scottish Crown and State asset and to reform the Government's and management framework while maintaining the revenue and capital value of the state. The purpose of the bill looked in the past few weeks as if it might be rather lost in the other debate. In my view, the stage 3 amendments to section 72 are an excellent example of that consensual approach by strengthening the duties to take account of wider issues such as sustainable development but to do so in a proportionate way. Up until now, the management of the Crown and State has been governed by the Crown and State Act 1961, which was expressed in terms of English property law and reflected the dominance of urban commercial property to the revenue of the UK-wide Crown and State. The balance of the Scottish Crown and State is, of course, quite different, and there have been since 1961 new industries such as oil, gas extraction, offshore renewables and aquaculture, all of which have an impact and all of which we can see will lead to significant revenue growth in the future. We also have a vision shared across this chamber that, in the management of the Scottish Crown and State, we should strive to add value to the wellbeing of citizens throughout Scotland's communities, embracing social benefits and sustainable development, as well as financial gain. Part of that vision is our pledge to create a framework for further devolving management to the communities of Scotland, creating an opportunity to truly place the accountability of the Scottish Crown and State in the hands of people across the country. I make no apology for putting that emphasis on communities. Of the various organisations that have stepped forward at this point to show interest in management, there are three local councils, Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles, but we have also got Port Gordon Harbour, Finthorn Village, Gullston Estate, St Abs and I, my voluntary marine reserve, the Tayon Arn Trust and Lochgoil Moorings Association. There is an appetite out there among communities, and I think that it is important to actually reflect that. The issue of kelp harvesting has at times seemed to overwhelm the purpose of this bill, and I am not going to get dragged back into it at this point in the debate. We are where we are. We may feel that it has not been the most appropriate process to follow, but nevertheless that is a debate perhaps to be had elsewhere than in the context of stage 3. In closing, the bill has been improved and strengthened as a result of the parliamentary process. I am very grateful to the members of the committee and other members in the chamber today for their contributions. I believe that we now have a bill that will help to ensure the long-term management sustainability of those important assets. For the first time, there are also new powers in legislation to change the manager of a Scottish Crown Estate asset. I am pleased to have created a historical first by bringing forward the first bill on the Scottish Crown Estate to this Parliament. We have seized an opportunity to develop a new, modern statutory framework that will support the realisation of our shared national ambition for some of Scotland's most important assets. I am proud to have moved the motion. Thank you very much, and that concludes our stage 3 debate on the Scottish Crown Estate Bill. The next item of business is consideration of a legislative content motion. Can I ask Humza Yousaf to move motion 14825 on the Crime Overseas Production Orders Bill? Can I also ask the cabinet secretary to move motion 14827 on the Offensive Weapons Bill? The next item of business is consideration of business motion 14837 in the name of Graham Day on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I call on Graham Day to move that motion. No one wishes to speak in this motion. The question therefore is that motion 14837 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of another two parliamentary bureau motions. Can I ask Graham Day on behalf of the Bureau to move motions 14838 on approval of an SSI and 14839 on the remit of a committee? Thank you very much. We turn now to decision time. The first question this afternoon is that motion 14822 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham on the Scottish Crown Estate Bill be agreed. Members should cast their votes now. Thank you. The result of the vote on motion 14822 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham is, yes, 119. There were no votes against. There were no abstentions. The vote is unanimous. The motion is therefore agreed and the Scottish Crown Estate Bill is passed. The next question is that motion 14825 in the name of Humza Yousaf on the crime overseas production orders bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 14827 in the name of Humza Yousaf on the Offensive Weapons Bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 14838 in the name of Graham Day on approval of an SSI be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 14839 in the name of Graham Day on the remit of a committee be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move on to members' business in the name of Claire Adamson on pancreatic cancer awareness. I will just take a few moments while members and ministers change seats.


Taden isa sa mga pillar ng systeman ng pamamakala ng mga marcos kasama ang technocratico at ang mga military so kung baga kung wala ng kronilismo ay naging mahina naging mahina ang systeman ng marcos pero dahil may kronilismo may concentration of wealth at the baby ang favor sa iba isa sa nagsustain ng systeman ng marcos so wala hong malino po na wala ng Golden Age sa kaso naman po na agricultura na binigay sa ating sa papel ng professor Ed Daden is hindi lang mga usaw wala ng Golden Age hindi lang mga sinang stagnate bagos nalugmuk pa lumapad ng kahirapan madami ang nagutom at ilang tao nakakawa na benefit sa mga lulong pamalaan sa ibang bansa so wala ng Golden Age sa agricultura dahil magana panggutom may displacement to rural area so nang sabot hudan sa ating tanong isre sound we know sa case naman po ng indigenous community na binigay sa ating sa papel ng professor Takeban is nakitaw natin experience ng indigenous community ngayon pwede o tayo magtanong bakit to ba importante ang indigenous community sa systeman na ekonomiya nakitaw natin sa papel ng professor Takeban na dahil hong meron silang alternatibong pananaw sa way of life hindi lang ng ekonomiya this is where you produce and consume is the everyday life for them at ito rin po ay importante dahil sa ito rin site of extraction ang mga indigenous groups natin ay sa mga bundok na sa mga gubat na naging site of extraction at ay di saan po doon ito is nakita natin sa parang I'm still overwhelmed by this story nang libo-libo iftariang lukain na pagaari ng mga katutubo sa isang iglaplang na parang magic under the control na siya ng disini nagiging under the palt and timber agreement na siya so a couple of years ago part siya ng daily life ng mga katutubo pero dahil sa regulation ng marcos ligan na lang parang magic under the control ng isang crony so nakita nyo nakatakapawful na instrumento ng estado kung paano din dis-possess ang mga katutubo at ngunta naman ko tayo sa papel ng professor of renao na yung mga issue ng FW na isaw itong stopgap measure pero dahil hindi naisustay na yubang aspect na economy naging yung main provider na sila ng corn exchange so kung baka binabati yung mga OFW kasi naging hero sila bagong bayang pero kaya po lang nangyari yun kasi nag-fail yung yubang aspect ng economy so they are heroes because they are taking the burden for the failure of other aspects of the economy which is product time so bilang closing po isa po sa important thing na sabi na ang speakers is yung issue ng call to arms na dapat mag-organisa and so on and yung po ang na-mentions sa ating last discussion at mula, dapat natin sa butin na kung mayang pa talagang golden age sa economy at ang sagut po natin sa iba-ibang datos years and years of research various sectors of examination at economy yung sa time yung mapos so maraming salamat po sa mga panigas sa mga nag-appendang ating formal thank you po maraming salamat po Sir Brian para sa lagom nang ating naging talakayan at muli maraming salamat po sa ating mga tagapagsalita at mga participants dito sa zoom sa facebook at sa youtube So bago po natin tuluyang isara ang session na ispo namin ibitahan ng lahat na makilakok 2021 nagaganapin bukas ika 24 ng sitiembre dearness sa ganap na ikastiam ng maga mali maraming salamat po sa inyong lahat never again never forget


Welcome to All Hands Update, I'm Petty Officer Jen Blake. Preventing suicide is a top priority for the Department of Defense. Some sailors may not show obvious signs of intent to harm themselves, but here are some behaviors to look out for. Reach out to anyone that may be showing signs of depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, or hopelessness. Potential signs that a shipmate may be in trouble include drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, having frequent mood swings, or giving away their personal belongings. Preventing suicide requires active communication. It starts with actions that build trust and meaningful connections with your shipmates. If you or someone you know needs help, visit the Military Crisis Line website for information on how you can save a life. Service members who just need to talk to someone can call or text the Military Crisis Line.


What's up everyone? It's your girl Kenzie here from Leighton Sports Cards and I'm repping a personal for Matthew S We've got a 2022 Panini three and two baseball first off the line Hobby box. You got your photo sticker right here for you Matthew Alright, good luck. Let's see we get three and two first up We've got five way relics for the Cubs Ernie Banks on the full count swatches Three bat relics in two jerseys there that is six of six and those are game worn Six of six on the full count swatches cool first one there I'm gonna get the packs next Save the auto for last right up first. We've got prospects of paint and battenfield seven of 32 red four of five Ivan Rodriguez is Rangers in our foil we have another Ernie Banks full count that one is 28 out of 50 on that foil Pretty banks about any banks. It really is. That's sick. All right last hit here for you Matthew We've got a quad relic of Shea Lingliers That is five out of six player worn used material Cool one there Oakland Nice patches there to two color two color three color and single Alright, that will do for your box Matthew. Thanks again for hopping in congrats on those hits and we will get them right out to you


Hi, I'm John Walls, I've been with the Cube for a couple of years, serving as a host here on our broadcast, our flagship broadcast on SiliconANGLE TV. I like to think about the how's and the why's and the what's of technology, how's it work, why does it matter, what is it doing for end users. When I think about what the Cube does and what it means, to me it's an off-the-chart benefit. The value is just immense, because when the Cube shows up it puts a stamp of approval on your event and says, man, you've arrived. Well, I know you can't be everywhere, you'd like to be, but what the Cube can do is bring you the insights and perspectives of some of the leading executives in the world today of these huge technology brands. We're talking about CEOs and CTOs and CIOs, and you can watch it all live. You can be the rock star of your water cooler at two in the afternoon and after watching an interview at one o'clock in the afternoon. You know first, and that's what the Cube does for you. Brings you all that insight first and foremost, but that's not enough. It's all our guy. And so if you missed an interview for whatever reason, you can always go back and re-Q, re-watch, take notes and have an even deeper and an even more concise and precise understanding of what's going on in technology. I'm John Walls, and I want to invite you to come by and see us. And if you want to talk a little golf on the side too, I won't mind that either. Thank you.


I know you work hard to make the best lifestyle choices, so you can improve your health, destiny, and longevity. And there's lots of information out there on how to do just that. So where do you start? Well, we start with the facts. Welcome to the Nutrition Facts Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Michael Greger. My job is to bring you the latest peer-reviewed nutrition and health research, and share it with you here. Today, we look at the long-chain omega-3 fatty acid DHA that plays an important role in supporting pregnant and breastfeeding women. In our first story, we discover how DHA improves the development of infants. One of the reasons breast-fed infants may have better cognitive and visual development is because human milk contains long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, like the omega-3 DHA. While most available infant formulas did not, where infants given control formula without DHA didn't do as well as those given DHA fortified formula. Neither did as well as the breast-fed infants who serve as the gold standard. But this was enough to convince formula manufacturers to start adding DHA to their infant formula starting back in 2002. The question then became how much to add? Easy, right? Just add however much is naturally found in breast milk. However, the DHA level in breast milk is extremely variable, depending on what the mom is eating. For example, there's all these healthy populations that don't eat any seafood and have much lower levels in their milk, and they seem fine, so that makes it difficult to determine the optimal amount to add to formula. Or for that matter, what to recommend for pregnant and breastfeeding women. Consensus guidelines recommend that women should aim to consume an average of 200 mg a day of DHA during pregnancy. Of course, this isn't as simple as encouraging women to eat more fish because of the toxic pollutants, such as mercury, such that for most fish, such as tuna, the brain damage caused by the mercury would exceed the benefit from the DHA. And some pollutants like PCBs can get stuck in our bodies for decades, and so it's not enough to just eat clean during pregnancy. What about purified fish oil? The methods supplement manufacturers use like distillation leave considerable amounts of PCBs and other pollutants in the products, so much so that, taken as directed, salmon, herring, and tuna oils would exceed the tolerable daily intake of toxicity. Thankfully, one can get the benefits without the risks by getting DHA from algae instead, which is where the fish get it from, and so pregnant and breastfeeding moms can cut out the middle fish and get DHA directly from the source at the bottom of the food chain where we don't have to worry about toxic pollutants. But until recently, we thought everyone should take these long chain omega-3s for their heart, but the balance of evidence is now such that doctors should no longer be recommending fish oil intake or fish consumption solely for prevention of coronary heart disease. But what about forexpectant and breastfeeding mothers? What's the latest science show? Put all the studies together, and turns out adding DHA to formula does not appear to help infant cognition after all, similar to other recent compilations of evidence that showed no significant benefit. In fact, at least four meta-analyses or systematic reviews have reached a similar conclusion. Now, these were mostly based on a standard series of measurements known as the Bailey scales for infant development. Their tests were used, there'd be different results, but so far no luck giving women DHA supplements during pregnancy did not appear to help with other outcomes like attention span or working memory either. Although there may be no significant benefits for infant cognition, what about other things, like vision? Six trials have been done to date supplementing pregnant women. Four showed no effect, and the two that showed benefit had some problems, and so we really don't know at this point. But hey, if all the studies so far show either nothing or benefit, why not just take them on the side of caution? Yeah, no demonstrable clear and consistent benefits, but there's new studies on this coming out all the time. If it's harmless, maybe women should just take it to be on the safe side. The problem is that it may not be harmless in large doses. In a study in which women were given a whopping 100 mg of DHA a day during pregnancy, infant girls exposed to the higher dose DHA in the womb had lower language scores and were more likely to have delayed language development than girls from women in the control group. So the absence of clear positive effects, along with the possible presence of negative effects, in the children raised the question whether DHA supplementation is justifiable. But it was a really large dose, suggesting that there may be an optimal DHA level below and above which DHA might be detrimental to the developing brain. So maybe too much is detrimental. What about too little? I'll cover that next. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of DHA supplementation of pregnant and breastfeeding women failed to find any clear and consistent short or long-term benefit for cycle motor, mental, visual, or physical development.  But what if moms don't start out with large maternal stores? In other words, maybe DHA failed to help women who were already getting enough, but maybe women with very low intakes would benefit from DHA supplementation. Well, first it's interesting to note that even by 1978 researchers were suggesting plant-based diets as the diet of choice in the treatment of our number one killer, but babies breastfed by vegan moms have significantly less DHA in their bloodstream, presumably because the moms had significantly less DHA in their breast milk. The question is whether these differences are of any consequence. The growth and development of vegan and vegetarian children are normal, as long as they're getting their B12. No evidence that neural or intellectual functions are impaired. In fact, the two studies we have on vegetarian kids showed that they had higher IQs, though that may have been because their parents tended to be better educated. But even though the kids seem fine, it doesn't rule out the possibility that there may be some subtle differences in visual or neural functioning. It'd be interesting to compare the function of babies getting vegan breast milk levels versus general population levels. Vegans had 14 vegetarians, 30 omnivores, 37. Now, just because babies breastfed by vegan moms have significantly lower DHA levels in the blood doesn't necessarily mean they have lower levels in their brain, which is where it counts. What we need is a randomized control trial in non-fish eaters of DHA supplementation. Until then, it's going to remain uncertain. So what should pregnant and breastfeeding women who avoid fish do in the meanwhile? Low intakes of DHA doesn't necessarily equate with fetal DHA inadequacy, but this new data suggests that some infants may not be getting enough and could benefit from their mom's supplementing. And so I recommend pregnant and breastfeeding women and plant-based eyes do follow the consensus guidelines to get about 200 milligrams of preformed DHA from an uncontaminated source like algae oil, which is probably the best combination for all women, given the state of our world, to minimize exposure to toxic pollutants, such as dioxins, PCBs, and mercury. We would love it if you could share with us your stories about reinventing your health through evidence-based nutrition. Go to nutritionfacts.org slash testimonials. We may share it on our social media to help inspire others. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, or studies mentioned here, please go to the Nutrition Facts podcast landing page there. You'll find all the detailed information you need, plus links to all the sources we cite for each of these topics. For a vital, timely text on the pathogens that cause pandemics, you can order the e-book, audiobook, or the hard copy of my last book, How to Survive a Pandemic. For recipes, check out my new How Not to Diet cookbook. It's beautifully designed with more than 100 recipes for delicious and nutritious meals. And all proceeds ever seen from the sales of all my books goes to charity. NutritionFacts.org itself is a non-profit, science-based public service, where you can sign up for free daily updates on the latest in nutrition research via bite-sized videos and articles. Everything on the website is free. There's no ads, no corporate sponsorship. It's strictly non-commercial. I'm not selling anything. I just put it up as a public service, as a labor of love as a tribute to my grandmother, whose own life was saved with evidence-based nutrition.


What is going on ladies and gentlemen and welcome back to another bitcoin daily video today we are going over this big move that we caught here on Friday and over the weekend remember on Friday's video we told you guys about these breakout entries right here which was a bounce on the bottom of this ascending support and it ran all the way up just as we spoke about and we're also talking about the same type of bounce that we saw in Ethereum and then we're also going over you know different things that we're looking for this week and different trade setups that we're looking for this week to make some profits this week so stay tuned guys let's jump right in Alrighty guys I hope you guys had an amazing weekend I hope you guys caught some of these profits that we made over the weekend let's jump right into that so this is these are the trades that we spoke about this week on Friday's video Bitcoin we told you guys we were buying above $18,200 and not only did it hit that but it ran all the way up to $19,400 guys so that was a 66% profit if you use 10x leverage on this trade on Ethereum we also caught the breakout above $5.50 as we mentioned to you guys ran up all the way to $5.95 for a 40% profit if you guys use 5x on these that's what we use on altcoins on Bitcoin cash we caught it at $270 ran up to $282 for 22% profit on a 5x leverage and litecoin from $80 to $84 plus 25% profit on 5x leverage so remember guys if you guys want to use and trade Bitcoin with leverage you can go down below hit our where it says buy bit and you guys could just use that link to sign up and and that is where we trade with leverage alright guys so let's jump into what we're watching for this week right so you guys see here we're looking at the daily right now you guys see it's been bouncing around so it we had this first initial drop right here bounce back up then kind of it's been getting rejected at the top every single time right and then we had this drop over the weekend over last weekend and the weekend well over the last week but then the weekend we popped right back up which was at the bottom of this range right here so so this is what we're currently watching right here you see was kind of a breakout right here from this from this kind of a bull flag pattern that we had more was more like a pen it and we kind of broke out of that which led us all the way back up to nineteen four hundred nineteen four fifty range and as you guys can see we're currently pushing up right now we're at nineteen thousand three fifty two so basically we're watching here we want to we want to see that we don't break back down one thing to be wary of is that we have another gap up guys so now this makes two gap ups that we have so this is a CME Bitcoin futures right here and you guys can see there's this gap right so what is a gap up this is what it is right here trying to zoom in for you guys this is as much as I can zoom in so this is a gap up right here you guys can see we closed at eighteen thousand and twenty on Friday and then then we opened at nineteen thousand one fifty five so that's over one thousand dollar gap up and we also had the same thing of well not the same thing but similar here the weekend before so we had closed here at sixteen thousand nine twenty five and we opened up at eighteen thousand two seventy five so almost the same thing here guys this one here was about was over also over a thousand yeah so so that's just something to keep in mind guys as you're trading make sure you're using your stop losses keep tight stops because if we do end up filling those gaps you know you can take losses if you don't have stop losses set up and put in place so you want to make sure to always have those stops put into place and be you know practice proper risk management so for this week what we're looking for is a continuation up basically unfortunately the move happened before we're able to put this video out but the trade that we're looking for was above an entry above nineteen thousand three hundred this is the first entry that we're looking for that we signaled in our trade group hopefully you guys in our trade group were able to catch that and hopefully it profits we got to see what happens here right so the next entry that we're looking at here it's going to be probably above these right here and that and it's close enough to that five hundred range where we would take that five hundred entry right so nineteen thousand five hundred is the next breakout entry that we're looking at here if we're looking at support then for support we're kind of we would be watching back down at the nineteen thousand it's basically where that support would be so we would we want to see a test and a bounce back up and we be buying the bounce back up and over nineteen K okay so that's pretty much the two trade setup for watching right now this week you know to start the week off so it's at nineteen thousand three hundred the nineteen thousand five hundred and that nineteen K if we come back down to test it we want to get it above that so let's go ahead and take a look at a theorem a them you see we kind of have that same pattern still right so we have that flat top pattern we've been consistently rejected at six twenty but the good news is we did catch this support and it respected it which is very good news so you see we got the bounce right off of there and I told you guys that entry from Friday was five fifty which was exactly where the bounce would have happened and this is that's exactly what what it did so it bounce all the way up until five ninety five that was a huge move up what was it up forty percent it was a forty percent move if you use five X leverage so what we're looking at for now we're pretty much looking at this five ninety area let's zoom in a bit into the four hour but we're looking at that five ninety area right it's a possible entry but there's a lot of consolidation here so you have to be careful with it use tight stops all right so if you're using that the five ninety breakout it would be a breakout above these last four four hour candles that's where we're playing this it would be a breakout you would you the risk that we're going to be using is probably like two and a half two dollars and fifty cents around there we just don't we don't want to because look how wide this is we don't want to be in this so we just want to keep a tight stop if it breaks out awesome we'll take profit at you know every five dollars or so and if it doesn't work out that's fine we will be looking for new entries at five eighty so five eighty is our next entry but we want to see something kind of like this word dips under it and then pops back over that five eighty break would be our entry so that's two trades we're looking at this week and then the third trade is above probably above this range right here which is the high of like basically the last week or so or the last few days but because it's so close to six hundred we'll just do a break above six hundred and as you guys know there's been a lot of consolidation at six hundred so it is a risky trade you have to be careful taking that so that's it for Ethereum let's go ahead and take a look at Bitcoin cash Friday we told you guys about that two seventy level and it broke right above it as you guys can see it was right around here that's also where this the fifty day moving average was so that actually worked out perfectly we were able to grab some profits there if you took that trade currently you see a pin bar set up here on top of that fifty day moving average so that's pretty good sign we would want to see a break of this two eighty zone so we can break above two eighty then we're looking to hit probably 283 and test this twenty day moving average probably around 283 to 284 range then that next number would probably be around that two ninety and then that could lead up to three hundred so that's with Bitcoin cash those are the trades that we're watching we're not really looking for any support here but the support looks like it could be that two seventy range which was our prior where we entered the breakout last time the fifty day moving average is there so you can use that two seventy as a support entry if it happens something like it did today right here where it drops under and pops back over it light coin as you guys can see we have this we had this descending wedge going down and if it's breaking up it broke out of it right there so and it's right at it's currently right at the twenty day moving average so here we're kind of looking for so the trades we took on Friday with the light coin was eighty so above eighty and it went up to like eighty four so we're probably looking for a break of the same area probably a break of eighty five is what I'm looking for here so a break of eighty five would would be the new breakout entry for a dip then I'm probably looking at something at the eighty dollar mark I would want to see it just like it did today dip under it and bounce back above it that would be the entry I'm looking for there XRP let's take a look as you guys can see you guys know that there is an airdrop on XRP and and as we expected we spoke about this there was a drop right on in the price now we so we broke out bearish from this pennant in this bull flag but that fifty cent range is actually holding up pretty nicely that's why we didn't take a short on this because we saw there's a lot of buyers at the fifty cent range and we actually we expect this to go back up so if you're looking for a long here on XRP you probably could take a breakout above fifty two cents and if you want to be safer than you could take it at fifty three cents those are two entries we don't really want any support entries here because it's just that fifty cent range is where all that battle is going on so we're looking for that breakout above fifty either fifty two or fifty three if you want to be a little bit safer and see if we can bounce back up with XRP chain link as you guys can see we were also pretty much trending down here and we did have a bounce back up we didn't take any trades on this and we're still not looking to take a trade here we want to see some consolidation here and then possibly a buy off this fifty day moving average here so that would probably be around that twelve fifty to thirteen dollar range but there was already one fake out at the thirteen dollar range so we're not currently taking any trades on chain link here it still needs to break above that twenty day over to Tezos kind of the same thing here not much going on it didn't move up from that two dollar range as we as we spoke about we said that two dollars as support bounce back up to that two twenty so that two twenty was is that next area with a lot of price action if you're looking for a breakout trade you could buy above two thirty that would be the level that I'd be looking for it to enter a trade there Neo you see we also got the nice bounce here I'm still not entering nothing in Neo I want to see a break of eighteen dollars for an entry here on Neo and that's basically it guys I think we covered pretty much all the trade setups we wanted to cover wanted to talk about hopefully you guys made some profits from our trade setups that we gave you guys on Friday if not don't worry guys there's always a new trade to make so that's pretty much it guys we're going to be watching the market and updating you guys as we go if you're in our trading in our trade room then you already know we're going to update you as we make trades if you're not then and watch our videos that we're going to be posting throughout the week and our Instagram page where we give daily updates as well that's pretty much it guys please guys make sure to hit that follow button make sure to hit that subscribe that in that like button and make sure to hit that notification bell so you're notified as soon as we post new videos with new trades sometimes these trades take off like this you got to watch a video quick that's pretty much it guys till tomorrow I will see you guys as always peace and love we're out