The next item of business is members' business debate on motion 8659, in the name of Jackie Bailey, on the Gorych Kilcregan ferry service. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons. I call on Jackie Bailey to open the debate around seven minutes, please. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the future of the Gorych Kilcregan ferry service. Let me thank the MSPs who backed my motion, and I'm pleased to have secured support of every party represented in the west of Scotland. At the outset, I want to pay tribute to the passengers who use the ferry and have campaigned over many years for an improved service. They have been stoic in the face of constant adversity, but frankly, Presiding Officer, enough is enough. Some of them have travelled to the Parliament today to watch the debate from the public gallery. Others are watching from whom. I am relieved that they even managed to get here on time, given the constant disruption to their ferry service. Kilcregan has always relied on the River Clyde for its transport links, dating back to the Victorian era when wealthy Glasgow merchants built grand summer houses along the shoreline of the Roseneith peninsula. Back then, the Clyde steamers took them directly to Glasgow's Bromilaw. Today, local residents can't even depend on a reliable service to Gorych. It's fair to say that this year has probably seen the most severe disruption on record. The Kilcregan ferry is operated by ClydeLink and the contract was renewed by Strathclyde partnership for transport earlier this year. I have to tell you that the Kilcregan ferry is now the nautical equivalent of faulty towers, but even ClydeLink makes Basil faulty look competent. Barely a fortnight goes by without another problem, resulting in crossings being cancelled or the service being suspended completely for days at a time. In June, the service was suspended for seven days after the maritime and coastguard agency inspectors found serious defects on board the island princess.  Then, in July, the service was again suspended for 10 days due to more failed MCA inspections. In August, staff shortages were there because they had holidays. No planning for a replacement so the service gets suspended again. Later in the month, it was off again because of paperwork being incomplete and unsatisfactory. Let me take you to September. The service was suspended twice for a whole week on the first occasion and then a day on the second. The same pattern repeated throughout October and November. What began as a summer of chaos for ferry passengers has extended into the autumn and winter. The ferry is off more than it's on. In every single month since the contract was renewed and to top it all last Friday, a fight broke out between one member of the crew and the skipper. Both have been arrested. Now, you just couldn't make this stuff up and every time the ferry is off, passengers need to make a 52-mile journey by replacement bus service instead of the usual 13-minute ferry crossing because there is no back-up vessel. This is a lifeline service, particularly for the communities on my side of the river. I know that passengers use the ferry to get to work, to get to college or university, to access health services that are based predominantly in hospitals on the south of the client. The impact of the disruption on their daily lives cannot be underestimated. I have spoken to constituents who have missed job opportunities because they couldn't get to that interview, others who have been disciplined because of their timekeeping through no fault of their own and others who have given up on the ferry completely and moved out of the area. The local businesses on the peninsula have lost out on revenue from tourists, cyclists and daytrippers on the days that the service was cancelled. If reliability does not improve, then visitors might not return next season either. Let me just tell you a little fact that we gleaned from FOI. Clyde Link, the ferry operator, owe over £30,000 in unpaid pier fees to our Gile and Butte Council. Frankly, that's a disgrace. However, such is the frustration of my local community that the peninsula choir has become the most likely contenders for Christmas number one with the new song that they have recorded criticising the slow and bureaucratic response from officialdom. Hundreds of people have signed my petition calling on SPT and the Scottish Government to take the service out of the hands of Clyde Link immediately. I have lost count of the number of times that I have had very productive meetings with the Minister for Transport to discuss this issue. I was delighted when, before the Scottish Parliament elections, the Scottish Government agreed in principle to transfer the service. Last October, Humza Yousaf confirmed that Transport Scotland and SPT had reached an agreement in principle. That's great news. However, the transfer has been held back by the delays to the Scottish Government's review of EU state aid rules on ferry procurement. Transport Scotland has confirmed that SPT has now provided all the information that it needs, so the only thing that we are waiting for is the conclusion of the review. However, I asked the Minister why we need to wait. In June, the Scottish Government assumed direct responsibility for the ferry service between Oban and the small island of Carrera. The route was immediately incorporated into the CalMac contract, and the community will get a newly built vessel, thanks to the Government's intervention. The review wasn't an issue there. It doesn't need to be an issue here either. If there is a will, then, Transport Minister, there is a way you can do this. SPT has issued a new tender notice for the service from next June, and I welcome that, because the poor service is, frankly, appalling. I welcome the action that was taken by Councillor Martin Bartos and the senior management team at SPT, but that cannot go on. We must have a reliable operator, and we must have one now, because the impact on my constituents and those from across the river is huge. We have been really patient, but my community is not patient anymore. We have put up with this for seven months, and we are not prepared to put up with it any longer. Parahandy would be better than the shambles, so I urge the Scottish Government and SPT to get beyond the reassurances. We have had all of those. Please take action and please do it now. I say to those in the public gallery that it is not appropriate to show appreciation or otherwise. We move on to the open debate speeches of four minutes please, and I call on Stuart McMillan to be followed by Jamie Greene. I would like to congratulate Jackie Baillie on securing this important member's debate this afternoon. Unfortunately, the issue of the Gwyrwch, Col Craig and Ferry service has been a continued massive inconvenience for the users in my constituency and also in the north of the river. Jackie Baillie set out many of the problems that the service has been beset with, so I am not going to go over most of that ground, but it is sufficient to say that it is clear that SPT have failed from the outset with this service, and their complete incompetence in managing the service is there for all to see. I have not always been an advocate for Transport Scotland taking the service on, but over the past two months my opinion has certainly changed. Prior to the current service providers operating the run, the service seemed to operate with little fuss. Obviously, the re-tendering had to take place, and the current providers won the tender with an apparent £1 million saving to the public purse. The financial saving, however, will no doubt have been nullified by others, as the service has lurched from one cancellation to another, and the effects that this has had upon local businesses, both north and south of the river. Locally, only two individual constituents have raised the issue with me, although it has been raised regularly by the Greenock West Cardwell Bay Community Council, unlike Jackie Baillie. I have written regularly to SPT, Transport Scotland and the previous and current Transport Ministers to try to get progress with this saga. Over time, I have come to this one simple conclusion, that SPT should not be in charge of the Gwyrwch Kilkregen ferry service. They have mismanaged the service, they have let users down and they have proven once and for all that they care little for the Clyde coast. I have raised the issue many times, and in my recent correspondence with SPT, dated 11 August, my opening sentence was that the Gwyrwch Kilkregen ferry route contract was renewed in April of this year, and frankly, the performance has been nothing short of appalling. The reply that has come in within a week has stated that the contract specification to which Clyde Link is operating does not require a backup vessel or for it to supply a replacement bus service. That certainly seems to contrast with the comments in the press release that was issued by SPT in January 2012, when the contract was awarded when it stated that, using a new-build 60-seat vessel, Clyde Link will provide a Monday to Saturday service between Gwyrwch and Kilkregen. The vessel that is used is the MBE Island Princess, which is not a new-build for the route. Is there a potential that the press release issued by SPT is not accurate, or has it just been sleeping on the job? Irrespective of the chicanery coming from SPT on the issue and going back to when they signed the contract, the situation has not improved and it has left a sour taste on the mouths of many people on both sides of the Clyde. I have a meeting with the Minister for Transport on 12 December and I am looking forward to having discussions about it directly and hopefully try to find a way forward. However, the issues with the route are not new. They have not just been for the last year. They have kept persisting over the years due to the many faults, but it is clear that SPT is not the correct organisation to be in charge of the service that affects both sides of the Clyde. When the contract was initially awarded way back in 2012, it was a different-run group of individuals who ran SPT. I certainly hope that the new group of councillors on SPT can now force through a change of mindset in that organisation to get them to take responsibility for the problems of their own making. The people who use the Gwrigol Cregon ferry service deserve a working and reliable ferry service, and if that means that Transport Scotland becomes the agency to deliver it, then so be it. However, it really is in stark contrast to the delivering services at local level agenda, which so many of us in the chamber support. I am sure that, if Transport Scotland takes responsibility for the route, it will be accused of centralisation. I think that it is irrespective of whoever controls the route that my constituents and the constituents north of the river deserve a service that is going to work when they say that it is going to work and to abide by the contract that has been signed. Thank you very much. I call Jamie Greene to be followed by Neil Bibby. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to participate in this debate. Having raised the issue in this chamber a few weeks ago with the First Minister, I think that it is very telling that no one is really making any political points today, that the support for Jackie Baillie's motion comes from across the chamber, and I am very pleased to see the local member for Inverclyde, Mr McMillan, and to participate in this debate. This is really about people, the service. It simply cannot be allowed to continue as it is. The status quo is completely untenable and unacceptable to people on both sides of the Clyde. The passenger numbers in the service have really been plummeting. In 2009, 2010, around 71,000 people used the service regularly, and that has dropped to around 53,000 last year. It is no great surprise, given the unreliability of the service. Passengers have fallen around 30 per cent, and possibly as a result of its unreliability. Despite the number of passengers that have fallen, the service remains quite a similar size to many other routes, some of which are opied by CalMac, which carry a comparable number of passengers annually and more reliably. One must ask why the service has been allowed to descend into such disarray. Instead of looking backwards, I would like to look forward as well as to what we could do about the situation. The current contract with ClydeLink costs a taxpayer around £320,000 per year. That is an increase compared to the previous contract on the service, an increase of around £80,000. On top of that, there is the matter of the subsidy that ClydeLink also received, which increased by around 55 per cent in the new contract. The ferry claims to be, and I quote, a frequent reliable ferry service from Gwroch to Col Craighan. Well, anyone who lives in Gwroch or Col Craighan knows that this statement simply is not true. On several occasions, there have been a number of staffing issues, and this has led to limiting the number of passengers that are able to use the service for safety reasons. The reason for that is that staffing shortages mean that often less qualified shipmates captain the service, and this limits the number of passengers to just 12 when at peak times the service should actually be carrying around 50 people, which is the vessel's current maximum capacity. To have just a quarter of the amount of people on board is simply unacceptable. Technical faults have also caused the majority of delays and cancellations, and in fact, high winds have only disrupted the ferry two times since June, to my knowledge. This will only get worse, however, as winter kicks in and the weather picks up. The motion that Jackie Baillie has presented to us notes that disruptions have become particularly acute since June. To put it into context, there have been over 50 days of disruption since June of this year, but this matter does not start in June. This has very much been a long-standing issue for quite a long time on affecting people on both sides of the Clyde. The problem is that, when the service is cancelled, the only alternative is to go by roads, and that is over a 100-mile journey. That is simply unacceptable to the many different types of users who use the service, people commuting to Greenock, to attend college, people who are travelling daily to work. I have heard stories from constituents who have got the ferry to work only to discover that they could not get the ferry home and then had to get the bus home, or you are either called for someone to come round the Clyde and actually pick them up. It takes hours, and it is the last thing that you want at the end of a long day at work. It is also affecting tourism, and it is also affecting people's ability to get to Inverclyde rural hospital as well, so the ramifications of that are quite large. As I said, looking forward, I was particularly unsure as to what the best solution is, as to whether the SBT should renew the contract, whether it should continue to maintain the contract. I think that there is a general feeling in the chamber today that, perhaps, Transport Scotland should be looking to take the contract on board. In my meeting with the transport minister on this issue, he promised to look at the issue and to review the cost of the service and the ramifications of taking it into his department. I wonder if he might update us on any progress that he has made with those thoughts. Either way, whether it is the existing operator or a new operator, or whether it comes under the guise of Transport Scotland, people just want a reliable service that works on time when they want it to. That is the outcome that everyone in the chamber wants. I thank Jackie Baillie for securing this debate today and for ensuring that the concerns and indeed frustrations of those who rely on the Gwric to Kilcregans service are put on the record here in the Scottish Parliament. Jackie Baillie quite rightly spoke about the importance of the ferry to the community in Kilcregan and the surrounding areas. The shot-crossing to Gwric makes hospitals, shops and public services accessible for those who would struggle to reach the same destinations timelessly and economically if travelling by land. To many people, the ferry is a lifeline service that makes living on the Rosneith peninsula viable. Without that service, fragile communities would be even more exposed to the population and the risk of exclusion and isolation. Disruption to the service brings disruption to people's lives in those communities, too. Of course, it is not just passengers based on the Kilcregan side of the crossing who depend on the ferry, but people departing from the Gwric side, too, in particular the workforce at the naval base on the Clyde. For them, the alternative, as we have heard, to a 13-minute journey by ferry is a 90-minute journey by land—a massive increase in their total commuting time. Yet, with frequent cancellations, staffing issues, mechanical faults, safety defects and fundamental questions about the ability of the current operator to deliver a safe, consistent and reliable service, that hour-and-a-half journey is one that commuters are having to take more and more. That is unacceptable. That is a service that ClydeLink is contracted to provide. It is not optional. It is a contractual requirement. The extension to the contract agreed by SBT earlier this year was reportedly worth £320,000. That is £320,000 of taxpayers' money. ClydeLink has been unable to demonstrate that they are capable of honouring that contract and meeting the agreed terms of service. The contract should be cancelled and a new operator should be found. The chair of SBT, Martin Bartos, as Jackie Baillie mentioned, has confirmed that, in his opinion, the situation that travellers presently find themselves in, dependent on such an unreliable service, is unacceptable. He also advised that SBT have arranged for checks of both the island princess vessels and the crew, and he specifically said that any deficiencies will be reported. However, action is needed on the contract itself. I note the announcement from SBT that they will be tendering early after what was reported in the Greenock Telegraph as increasing frustration with ClydeLink. Moose to replace ClydeLink with a more dependable operator is welcome. However, as others have said, largely for historic reasons, the Kilcregan ferry is in an anomalous position and is still being provided by SBT. Surely now is the time for the Scottish Government to make good on its promise to assume responsibility for the service. Surely now is the time for SBT and the Scottish Government to transfer responsibility for the Kilcregan to Transport Scotland. No more delays, no more provocation, let's just get it done. That's what passengers want, including hundreds of passengers who signed Jackie's Bailey's petition on the subject, some of them who have joined us here today. That's what the communities want, including Cardwell Bay and Greenock West Community Council in my own region, who I've specifically called on the Scottish Government to, and I quote, resolve this once and for all. I can see no reason why the Scottish Government should be dragging their heels. The misery for passengers has gone on for too long, enough is enough, it's time for the Scottish Government to intervene and I would urge the Scottish Government to intervene. Thank you. The last of the open debate contributions is from Maurice Corry. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to start by thanking Jackie Bailey for bringing this debate, and it's an important debate for our community to the chamber today. I also welcome the residents from the peninsula and other, and Nimbus Clyde as well. It's great to see you here, and it just shows the Minister what support we have in trying to sort this problem out. The concregarant ferry has been a long-established link between the north and south side of Clyde, which has now dropped sadly to around 50,000 passengers a year from the 80,000 when it was running really well. The primary reason for this drop in travellers is due to the unreliability of the service, forcing commuters to find alternative and much longer and costlier routes to work, as other speakers have said already. Many of the members in the chamber today will experience delays on trains, buses and other modes of public transport. Therefore, they will be able to appreciate the frustration and the inconvenience that this causes, even on the odd occasion. However, when it becomes a regular and constant occurrence, it becomes unacceptable and a daily nuisance, which costs people unnecessary time, money and stress. Last year, there were also problems, and it was suggested that Transport Scotland should assume responsibility for the service. At the time, I made it clear that the offering of a short-term contract would only continue the problems that were experienced with the service, as a 16-month contract offered was not long enough to attract new investment. I was stressed again that the service needs a long-term, well-funded contract to ensure that the service is managed efficiently. There will appear to be a unanimous agreement in the transfer of the contract from SPT to Transport Scotland, although it must be kept as a single service and not bundled into another contract, taking the focus away from the important service between Corkregan and Gwreg. Colleagues across party lines on both sides of the Clyde have been campaigning for the end of the contract and the issue of a new one. I understand that, by cancelling the contract, it leaves no service, which would be even worse than the current situation. However, SPT could issue a new tender with a transfer clause if Transport Scotland were ready to agree to take the service over. My team and I have been proactively working on the issue to find a solution and have highlighted local businesses that are willing and keen to put together a tender. I urge SPT to issue a tender to get this process under way to resolve the issue as quickly as possible for the benefit of commuters who would have to travel over an hour instead of a 10-minute journey. I welcome the fact that the tender is out. The tender date is about to close and, hopefully, we will have a new operator. Maurice Corry I welcome that, and I am glad to see that that has actually happened. The importance of this journey refers particularly to the workforce at Coolport and Fasleyne, which is a very important employer. We know that, at peak times, that ferry is terribly important to get people from Inverclyde across and back later on in the evening in the day. Due to its large increase in travelling time and inconvenience, it deters daytrippers from visiting the Rose Neath Peninsula, particularly and heavily impacting on local businesses. Cochregan village has formed several very good local businesses, which are suffering massively as a result. An example of that is an individual who travels from Goerich to Cochregan to visit the award-winning butchers on behalf of several families. While the order is being prepared and enjoys a few pints in the local pub, groups of cyclists, walkers, etc., are also unable to make the trip or choose other destinations due to the risk of not being able to return home. Only last week there was a song release to raise awareness, as Jackie referred to. My colleagues in the gallery have worked studiously at the awareness issue performed by the local provincial acquire on Cochregan player. I am delighted to see some of them here today in the galleries that I referred to. The project was co-ordinated by my team as a community project to highlight those issues and to bring the attention of the Scottish Government, the frustration being caused not just within Cochregan and Cove but also in Gwric and Greenock and in Verklyde. That has created a tension as far away as Australia and California were a choir where I wished the group good luck in sorting out our service and applauded the local community for raising issues in such a creative and unique way and well done to the choir in doing so. I hope that the minister has seen the video of the song and has noted the support for the service and its importance to the local community. In conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, with those points in mind, I had once again appealed to the minister to bring the service under the control of Transport Scotland to ensure its reliable, safe and efficient operation in the future. As the final line of the song says, we need our wee ferry and we need it now. I call on Hamza Yousaf to respond to the debate. I thank Jackie Baillie for bringing the motion for debate to the Parliament and for the excellent contributions across the chamber. There are a number of common threads that I will try to comment on. I will try to answer some of the questions that have been asked by members and they can intervene if they think that I am omitting anything. I will try to get right into the nub of the issue. We are very acutely aware, and I am, of the recent periods of significant disruption, as described particularly by Jackie Baillie, to the good at Cochregan ferry service. I understand the frustrations of passengers that rely on this important link and my role as Minister for Transport and the Islands. I hear from service users from right across Scotland whenever a ferry service is disrupted, whether that be due to whether related reasons or technical issues or other unforeseen circumstances. I have, of course, in relation to this specific service, met with Jackie Baillie. We will soon be meeting with Stuart McMillan, and I have met with members of the Cochregan community council on this issue. I have exchanged a number of letters with them and I am aware that officials have recently met with community council members on both sides of the crossing and heard first hand how the disruption has affected them. I would like to welcome members, or ferry service users, to the gallery. In fact, the user of the ferry service would be, of course, quite entitled to make a song and dance about this disruption to the service. I have viewed the performance of our Cochregan ferry. I would like to congratulate all those involved. It was a very novel way, of course, of making their point, but born out of their very real anger, their very real frustration. As Jackie Baillie will know, disruption affects workers' travelling too. From Fazlain and Kilport, as our colleague Neil Bibby has said, commuters travelling to Goruch, as Stuart McMillan has said, for their onward connections on to Glasgow, locals using the service and businesses on both sides of the crossing. It is quite clear that we are all in agreement that the current service offering is simply not acceptable for anyone. However, it is also clear, which has been said by every member here correctly, that SPT holds the responsibility for the service. I have met the chair, Councillor Martin Barthaus, and had a number of discussions with him, whether on over the phone or face to face, where I have expressed my concern. On the issue that many members have asked me to address on the transfer of responsibility, the ferries plan 2013-22 stated that the Scottish Government is willing to be responsible for all lifeline ferry services in Scotland, subject to the principles set out in the plan, and that we would work with local authorities and regional transport partnerships to discuss the possibility of the Scottish Government taking over the responsibility for the ferry service. Where are the issues that still need to be discussed? I absolutely appreciate from Jackie Baillie and Stuart McMillan's constituent's point of view that it might seem like bureaucracy. Is the issue of the true cost of the ferry service? Jackie Baillie rightly highlighted that the vessel that is being used has over 30 defects noted by the regulator, the MCA. Some of those defects were serious defects. For the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland to take on that service, we would have to know the true cost, which would include replacing the vessel that I gave away to Jackie Baillie. Jackie Baillie, I am grateful to the minister for taking on the intervention. Would he confirm, though, that the SPT have provided Transport Scotland with all the information that they have requested in order for you to make that decision? Recently, I have received some more information from SPT and I have promised councillor Martin Barthors that I will take a very close examination and a look of that. I do want to talk about a way forward, but I just wanted to make the point here that there are some very legitimate concerns and questions that we have about the true cost, which we need to have the answers to. The other point that has been mentioned, that I think is absolutely right, is that, of course, recently it has been advised that the SPT of their plans to retender the service, which has gone out, I think that the tender closes on 4 December or thereabouts. Of course, what is really important about that tender is that the SPT has put more of an emphasis on quality over price, which I think will be very welcome. What I will do is wait for that tendering process to close, re-engage my conversations with councillor Martin Barthors, see what his feelings are about the expressions of interest that have come forward. With the information that he has recently provided, as Jackie Baillie mentioned, I will have a further and continued conversation about the transfer of the responsibility, but every single member here has been absolutely right in saying that the service provided by the operator is simply not acceptable. The offer is there to SPT that, if they wish to explore whether or not the operator has lived up to their legal obligations, I am more than happy to provide for them use and resource in the expertise of Transport Scotland and, indeed, there are other experts in the field to examine and work with SPT to see whether that can be explored in further detail. I agree with Jackie Baillie to wait for the re-tendering of a service that would not possibly come into service until summer next year.  If that is a helpful offer that I will make to SPT, I will certainly do that. However, I want to wait until the tender closes to re-engage conversations with the head of SPT. Jamie Greene I thank the minister for taking my intervention. Based on the comments that he has made in the limited time that we have in this debate, is he saying that his understanding that this is not a lifeline service and that it could not be classified as one? Secondly, is he also saying, possibly indirectly, that if it is identified that the cost is more than the current £300 odd thousand, if he deems it to be too much, Transport Scotland simply would not take on board the liability of the service and be a bit confused as to what the plan of action is at moving forward? Humza Yousaf I was not disagreeing over the nature of the service at all and there is a very clear definition of lifeline services in our ferry plans. That is not the issue of any bone of contention. What I am saying simply is, I think, very reasonably, I would hope, that in order for us, if we were to take responsibility, we would need to know the true cost of that. If we have a budget in a couple of weeks' time, we would need to know the exact cost of that, which would not just be the contract cost per annum, because clearly there is an issue around the vessel. I am saying that we need to drill down into what the cost of replacing that vessel would be. It would require a backup vessel perhaps. What is the true value of taking over the entirety of the contract? As was done in previous examples, as Jackie Baillie mentioned, we need to have that. SPT has provided some further information. I promise to have a look at that. If it is helpful now that the tender is approaching close, once it has closed, I will have a further conversation with Martin Bartos and every single member who has spoken here. I will endeavour to give an update, because we have in principle, as Jackie Baillie mentioned, an agreement there to take over lifeline services. I do not shy away from that, but it is based on the criteria that I set out in the ferry's plan. It is important for us to see what the feedback is from the tendering exercise. I would welcome members' thoughts on that, and I will certainly give my thoughts to that to SPT. I can give a guarantee to members that, on the closure of that tendering process, I will re-engage with the chair of SPT, who I must remind the chamber has responsibility for this ferry service. It is my hope that, with the steps that SPT has taken, with the continuation of the conversation, it will provide users with a much more improved service offering, and one that they can, hopefully, rely on. That concludes the debate, and the meeting is suspended until half-past 2.


Bimar is sickness, illness, and so on, stand location, so the Bimaristan are the centers for healing, somebody who's ill. Bimaristan shortened is Maristan, and that's where we got our name, this inspiration. In Arabic they were called daughter shifa, same idea, daughter location of shifa healing. In Islamic history, some of my research and the work of my team at the lab, Mashallah, we've been really working and actually we're writing a book at the moment on what is a Maristan and what is the history and how what it is Muslims contribute, and it's really phenomenal Mashallah, but not only did they create the Maristans, but they actually had inside of their hospitals along with physical illness, you know your your organs, anything related to bones, anything related to surgery was there of course as any hospital, but in addition the Muslims were the first to add mental health, the first psychiatric wards, and this is incredible because it's at a time where the people before them, other religious traditions or even the Greeks and the Romans and other civilizations that came before them didn't do this. There's something about Islam that allows for holistic healing, mind, body, soul connected to each other and you don't take them apart, so they didn't discriminate between physical illness and mental illness, it's in the same healing center that the Maristan, and today you can still visit some of these, if you go ever to Istanbul there are still some standing that from the later years before the Ottoman Empire fell, you still see the Maristans there, you can see them still in Cairo, you can see them in certain countries in which they're actually still there.


Hello everyone. Welcome to another IR capsule for the Shankar AAS Academy. Today we will discuss the most recent summit of the BRICS countries. All of you are aware as to who the members of this group are. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The summit was held virtually hosted by President Xi Jinping. And the very fact that the summit took place at this time in history was a little bit surprising. Because in the context of what has happened in the last couple of years, the chemistry of the member countries that is Brazil, India, China, Russia and South Africa had changed considerably. The global politics is undergoing a great change. And the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and the continued occupation of China of various areas in Ladakh. All this had an impact on the relationship among these countries. You may recall that this grouping was not invented by the members of the group, but by a Goldman Sachs professor who in 2001 identified these countries. South Africa was added later. He identified the four countries that is Brazil, India, Russia and China. They are having some common characteristics, which he thought would have an impact on international economic situation. And he predicted that these countries will have a global leadership, or at least a domination of world economic growth by 2050. So it was just an identification of certain characteristics of these four countries. And nobody expected that it would become a formal grouping of this kind. But I think the Chinese saw an opportunity here of bringing these countries together because it would be a group of non-Western countries, particularly since they were going to deal with economic issues. So China saw in it an opportunity to fulfill their dream of rewriting the economic pattern of the world, the domination of the world bank and IMF. And generally Western dominance of the world and the value of the dollar. That was the prevailing economic arrangements in the world, written rules, institutions, etc. And China had long dreamt of a change in the situation so that China can have a role, a different role in the management of the world economic system. India also had several ideas like that of reforming the economic situation. And so a group of developing countries, even though Russia was also in it, was found welcome. Though we were hesitant about it because we did not want to appear as though we were setting up an economic group non-Western, not to appear it to be an anti-Western move. But over the years, BRICS, together with South Africa, which was added because of geographic representation, has functioned as a group of developing countries looking at their own economic problems, encouraging cooperation among themselves and also seeking a better deal from the West. This suited all the four of us. But the benefits came mainly to China because China took the leadership. They set up this new bank. There were other institutions which would provide short-term assistance to the member countries. And generally a benign economic approach with their eye on a changed economic situation. So this is the 14th summit. And if you look at the declarations issued at these conferences, it was basically a G77 approach that is justice for developing countries, increased role for them in the United Nations and elsewhere. And so it was generally beneficial. But it was very clear that it was China which was taking the initiatives and in fact even contributing to the work of BRICS. And we went along with it with certain benefits that we also and the other countries received. But there was already a contradiction in BRICS because there were two countries which were major powers. One was a superpower, another aspiring to be a superpower. And three countries which are developing countries, large and fast growing, but nowhere in the vicinity of development of Russia and China. So there was already a little contradiction there. But the presence of Russia and China who had a different kind of relationship gave it some kind of a balanced position. But the present situation is very different from what it was in 2001 when it was identified and 2006 when it was formally structured. The main change that has taken place is that India-China relations have changed dramatically. China has violated almost all the agreements reached since 1988. And the relationship is an open question now as to how it will develop. Meantime China occupies several areas across the line of actual control and negotiations are not moving forward for disengagement. So we have identified, we have established that a new kind of relationship with China is necessary. And like we moved out of SAARC or we did not allow SAARC to function because of our differences with Pakistan. There was sufficient reason for us to keep away from BRICS or not have meetings that could be some justification there. And also the pandemic proved that cooperation among these countries is not easy or automatic. Then the Ukraine war changed the image of Russia and within the BRICS the approach to the Ukraine war was not uniform. So the pandemic, the India-China relationship and the Ukraine war had completely changed the chemistry, the relationship between these four countries, five countries. So that's why I said it was significant that such a meeting was held. Not only that such a meeting was held, a very long 7500 words joint statement was issued. And also on the second day, that is on the 24th of June, a high level dialogue on global development involving BRICS leaders and 13 like-minded countries who were invited. And there also there was a longish declaration about the present global situation. So both these are important documents and the fact that it happened was significant enough. But if you study this document very carefully, you will find that there is a kind of escapism in this. That is, they are avoiding because there were differences among them. They were avoiding the contentious issues. But looking for statements, positions which were identified and recognized before these changes and bring them out as though nothing has changed in the relationship between these countries. And that is where these documents will be called into question at some stage or the other. But interestingly, they have only picked up those ideas in which there is some general agreement. For example, the regional agreement among all the BRICS countries that there should be a multilateral system which is reformed, including the United Nations, particularly the security council. Here again the contradiction was that two of these members are permanent members and the three members are aspiring permanent members. And it is quite evident that neither China nor Russia, even though these three countries are partners in this group, have no sympathy for their admission as permanent members. They have developed a position, both China and Russia, developed a position that they want to reform, but not the way we want it. Not the way of bringing in developing countries into the security council as permanent members. They were inclined towards Japan and Germany entering, but they were never supportive of India, Brazil and South African permanent members. So in many of the documents that the BRICS had produced, they had established a position that yes, they must have a bigger role to play these countries, but without mentioning the permanent membership. So here again, although all this has happened, there is nothing, nothing has changed in their fundamental position. But they were able to find language which would not dissatisfy India, Brazil and South Africa. And the entire document, you will find this kind of escapism and re-establishing principles that were established earlier. Without taking note of the changes that have taken place in the world. Although those are all mentioned. For example, we all know that the pandemic took China in a very difficult situation. A suspicion that China was responsible for it. Or at least they were guilty of not telling the world about it early enough. So China was in the dock as it were when the pandemic broke out. And they have been struggling to establish their credentials. But still, it is not clear as to whether China had any responsibility in it. And because China took that position as a permanent member of the security council, the United Nations could not act together in a case of a threat to international peace and security. Existential threat. In the case of other diseases like HIV, AIDS, Ebola, etc. The UN system itself, not just the WHO, came into that and they could be resolved. But here the security council could not even meet. And therefore all individual countries rushing Helter Skelter to find a way. When developed nations, particularly the United States was in deep trouble. So the lack of international cooperation, China doing various things, India doing various things, United States doing things, Europe was a real disaster in terms of dealing with a crisis in a multilateral way. But certain things developed, Quad developed certain ideas, international cooperation, K-20 did, SAR did not. And general cooperation developed after a year or so and now we all have reason to feel that yes, there is multilateral cooperation in vaccine development, distribution, etc. So the pandemic was a test case as to whether China as a powerful country will be able to work with others in a situation like this, where they are accused. So this is a major change. But what they have done in the joint statements, speaking about what they have individually done and the need for us to do more, etc. Without accusing anybody of having upset the multilateral cooperation aspect. Ukraine is mentioned, but it is mentioned in such a way that it does not justify, it does not object to the Russian action, nor does it justify the action because it speaks about need for respecting sovereignty, territorial integrity, peaceful settlement of disputes. So all these principles have been initiated, but without specifically linking it to the changes that has taken place in Russia's image. China took a very friendly position towards Russia just before the war started, we all know. The President Putin went to Beijing a few days before he invaded Ukraine and signed an unprecedented agreement between Russia and China, which transformed the relationship between the two. And there seemed to be an implied understanding that China would support Russia on the question of Ukraine. And if necessary, Russia will support China on the question of Taiwan. This again has put both these countries in a different group altogether within bricks. So how could they find a solution except ask for peace, except for negotiations and it was ironical that Russia is also asking for negotiations together with these countries. But refusing to have any kind of negotiations or even as these facts. So there's a certain duplicity here. And in order to keep the integrity of the bricks, they have stated these principles, which are very difficult to apply in the present situation. So it has a certain strange ring about it. And China talks about border conflicts should be avoided. There should be friendship among countries and so on, and holding on to the integrity. And Russia declaring the same things while they are occupying another country. And threatening world peace in a big way which could develop into a global conflict. So these are some of the things that stand out as artificial or some kind of escapism. In order to protect the integrity of bricks. Does it have any value? Will it have any impact on the global situation. And that is doubtful. Things have to change if these things are to be talked about. But the documents, the two documents called for reform, political and economic reform around the world. All the principles are listed again and again. They talk about responsiveness, effectiveness, transparency, democracy, objective, action oriented and credible global system, which reflects the sovereignty and territorial dignity of countries of the world. So they sound a little bit hollow in the context in which this has been made. But let us look at this document carefully. And we will find that they have identified three pillars, politics and security, economic and financial reform, cultural and people to people dialogue. Again, unquestionable. It makes a case of multi polarity and multilateralism. But these were quite valid before Galvan, Galvan, COVID and Ukraine. But now when they talk about it, it rings a certain unreal world. But that does not stop them from going ahead with an elaborate declaration. And China certainly wanted to inject fresh energy into this, because they see bricks as an additional facility for them, in addition to BRI, whatever other things they are doing. It is an instrument of their grandiose positions, foster high quality bricks partnership, new era of global development. All these are stated. By calling a meeting for a high level dialogue on global development. China has also hinted that the bricks should be expanded. They invited about 13 countries and China has been saying that this is time for us to expand bricks. Or without of course changing, bringing any country which would be against Chinese interests. But the other countries, the three countries have been reluctant to accept the idea of expansion. It's not just expansion, but all of us are insisting that any expansion should be on the basis of consensus. And no country should be bringing in other countries to the bank. But that's exactly what China did. They brought these countries of special invitees and made a separate declaration. And that itself is again a matter of concern for the others. They fill up the bricks with several other countries with different orientations. It may not be difficult for us to sustain this. So in fact, unsustainability of bricks already evident in this conference. The expansion of membership is meant to demonstrate the diversity of the group, according to the Chinese. So they want the emerging markets and developing countries of the leadership of the global south. You may remember there was already an India Brazil South Africa group of fastest developing countries, emerging countries. But that has taken a backseat after the evolution of bricks, but it's also continues. So while Beijing and Moscow are waiting to speed up the expansion, the other countries are reluctant. And this may not happen. You may know that India was kept out of APEC all these years. We have stopped asking for membership, but it has not happened even today. Because some of the western countries kept India out of APEC all these years. So the need to clarify the guiding principles standards criteria and procedures. That are necessary before any expansion take place. But we cannot lose this in spite of all these, shall we say some negative elements. We cannot say that bricks has not done anything. There is a hundred billion strong new development back with 78 projects available to the bricks countries. There is a hundred billion contingent reserve arrangement and cooperation in several sectors have been taking place. And these are no mean achievements. Perhaps one of the reasons why India South Africa and Brazil are continuing in this grouping is basically because of these economic advantages for which China has taken the initiative. So we cannot say that it was entirely fruitless. But as I said, there is a lack of acceptance of realism. Climate change, for example. On climate change, all the five countries have more or less similar approach. But as developing countries, we insist on financial assistance. We insist on modern technology to meet the challenges of climate change. But the declaration simply mentions all the developments that have taken place, the Paris Agreement commitments under Paris Agreement. And now the decision to identify countries which can declare net carbon emission zero years. And China and India agree that is declaring these carbon free net carbon free years will be difficult for developing countries unless there is external assistance on the basis of the principle adopted long ago about differentiated responsibilities of developing countries and developed countries. That has been stated in the declaration but in a very soft manner. And no new area of effort among the three countries is mentioned. It only mentions that more action is required to make this a reality. And India has specifically said unless there is a trillion dollars made available will be difficult for us to stick to the year 2070 which we have identified as the peaking of India's global emissions. So in other words, this is this conference has added limited value. One of those that was held, and these four countries are still on talking terms, because it was virtual therefore there was no opportunity for the five leaders to sit together and exchange ideas. And but the underlying tension was quite evident in the documents that have been issued so it was a limited success. It keeps the process of the development of bricks going. It contributed to the work that is being done by the bank and the contingency fund etc which India, India and China have major major contributions and ready for a better, better world. Africa is supposed to host bricks next year. And hopefully these reiterations of principles will be valuable for these countries and the world to shape a new global order. As you know the present day is a global disorder and I personally feel this is a time for countries to meet bilaterally and discuss issues rather than go into groupings, the justification of which seem to have changed. We recognize that in the case of SAAC, but we did not recognize in the case of bricks by saying that no, we will not participate because of these reasons. This is obviously a very diplomatic approach. So the summit has really given a lease of life to bricks in spite of the negative changes and the negative attitudes which are found. So we can perhaps hope that these new reiteration of principles will have an impact on Russia and China in their own attitude towards the other countries. On the question of expansion of bricks, but also on the expansion of the security council. So it's optimistic, but kind of an escapist document. So it is fair as it goes, but the value of it will be can be assessed only after more changes take place and how these countries evolve in their relationship with each other. Of course, you know their solutions, which are not acceptable to us at all. But I did not mention JNK and Adnan Sir Pradesh because those are not new issues. Those have been in the India-China agenda for a long time and we have high level discussions taking place without coming to any kind of resolution. And we don't expect any resolution in a hurry because China is not in a hurry to solve any of these. Because by maintaining tensions in JNK and Adnan Sir Pradesh, they have the opportunity to test India or to teach India lesson etc. So in the context of bricks, these are not relevant. But in the context of bricks, the inter-relationship between these countries is relevant. But JNK and Adnan Sir Pradesh are all major issues which cannot be proposed in this forum. Well, he has not been travelling to so many countries in the last two years. Today I saw the account that he had been to 64 countries total and almost 60 of them were before the pandemic. And therefore it's not a large number and also because of the virtual summits that have taken place. But he was physically in Japan for the Quad. He was physically in Germany for G7. He was basically in UAE to resolve some political and economic problems with the 12 countries. So I think he is not travelling too much. He is doing only the basic essential. Even in the old days when he was travelling, I used to think that he only went to places where he had seen the potential of solving problems. He was going five times to US or five times to Nepal or four times to UAE. He all had its meaning and it had specific advantages. So I'm not a critic of his travels. I have a feeling that he has done it judicious. Thank you very much. Bye-bye.


I'm JP Stacey. I'm a freelancer with my own company and I've been working in Drupal for about 10 years. I'm here because Drupal Camp London has been consistently the best value for money of any of the council conferences that I've ever been to. I've been involved in Drupal from the days of five and it was a conscious decision last year that I really wanted to get much more involved in Drupal 8. To that end I've been doing a lot of work with things like the mentored sprints and a lot of work in the issue queues. A lot of work on documentation because documentation is a really good way of getting into this stuff because you're learning by doing. As part of that I've been writing a set of blog posts on the Drupal 8 APIs, going through the APIs as they're currently documented and trying to do worked examples. I've had a lot of feedback from people who are following my work examples and writing them out themselves. They're spotting all the bugs, which is great, which is really good. As I've been working more and more with Drupal 8 I've come to realise what a step-changer is. Both as a challenge but also the extra opportunities for a developer. Just the clean away in which you can write code in Drupal 8 and the way it just seems to make a lot more sense. A lot more sense to people who aren't using Drupal and that's really moving more and more towards Drupal 8. As of a month or so ago I started working with a client on a project which has got entirely Drupal 8, several Drupal 8 sites. All in one project and one of those is going to be a Drupal commerce site so we're looking at Drupal 8 commerce. The buffs are a great way of having conversations which aren't always the kind of conversations you can have in sessions. Very specifically at every conference or camp I go to if there isn't a buff about freelancers and freelancing then I try and sneak one in. Luckily there is one later today but freelancers just by nature tend to be happy working alone. That pushes people towards freelancing but at the same time that can be quite lonely and you don't feel like you've got a support network. The Drupal community, it really is a community, they've always got your back. Coming to something like this you meet all these people that sometimes you only know their name online or whatever or you've only spoken to them online chat or something. To be able to meet them here and talk to them and swap ideas. It's a great way of being able to detach as a freelancer and work independently but then come together and share knowledge and share skills. It's the best of both worlds really, that's what the informal tracks at a Drupal camp provide.


24 hours after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt addressed the nation. I asked that Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire. General Douglas MacArthur, head of the Army Forces in the Far East, was faced with furious aerial attacks on the Philippines. The Japanese bombed the islands heavily and destroyed half the total American bombing force and over half the fighter force in the Philippines. The remaining American aircraft fought back against overwhelming odds, but the Japanese drove the Americans out of the Philippines. In China, at Kunming, Claire Chennault had 84 pilots in the American volunteer group that later became known popularly as the Flying Tigers. Their mission? To engage and destroy Japanese aircraft. The Japanese, based at Hanoi, 350 miles away, headed for Kunming on December 20 to attack the untried American fliers. The Flying Tigers met the Imperial Japanese Air Force, which was then victoriously sweeping Pacific skies. The Japanese were defeated and 60% of their force was destroyed. Four months later, another group of volunteers, flying B-25s and led by Colonel Jimmy Doolittle, took off from the aircraft carrier Hornet to strike Tokyo from the sea. Factories in Tokyo were turning out munitions tagged for Corregidor, Midway and Dutch Harbor. One after another, the American bombers checked off their targets. Tank factories, shipyards, docks, railroad yards, steel plants, gunpowder factories. The raid was an omen of the eventual destruction to be heaped on Japan from the air. In the spring of 1942, the Axis powers were winning the war. The Allies faced their gravest crisis as Nazi and Japanese officers met in Germany to plan a victorious meeting of their armies in Asia. In those bleak days of 1942, German forces pushed toward Japan. Relentlessly, the Axis pincers threatened to close in Central Asia. By May 15th, the Navy had intercepted communications that detailed a Japanese plan to invade Midway and points in the illusions. The Army and Navy decided to attempt an intercept of the Japanese Navy at Midway. The Japanese fleet, more than 80 warships advanced, some steaming north toward Alaska, the main body converging on Midway. Navy, Marine and Army Air Force fighters and bombers were on constant alert. The battle took place between the 3rd and 5th of June. U.S. Navy aircraft attacked from 3600 feet and went down and scraped the depths. One by one, the Japanese ships caught fire. Besides 8 auxiliary vessels, the Japanese lost 4 carriers, 2 heavy cruisers and 3 destroyers, along with 275 aircraft and 4800 men. Midway was perhaps the most important battle of the Pacific Naval War. Here, the carrier airplane proved itself an effective defensive weapon against attacking surface forces. In April through June of 1942, men of the 8th Air Force, 10,000 strong, left for England on the Queen Elizabeth. The 8th Air Force was preparing for daylight precision bombing, although the British pursued night area bombing, having suffered heavy losses in daylight operations. On the 17th of August, the 8th Bomber Command loaded up for the first U.S. raid from England in U.S. planes in daylight. The target was the marshaling yard near Rouen. Visibility was excellent, something the British didn't get for night bombing. The 12 planes dropped a total of 37,000 pounds of arms with good accuracy. Two of the planes collected flak, but all of them evaded the German fighters and returned to England intact. On the other side of the world, the Japanese drive toward Port Moresby, one of the few bases the Allies still held north of Australia, threatened to push the Allies into the sea. MacArthur ordered troops rushed into battle by air. To support the 10,000 American and Australian troops flown over the mountains, air transports delivered supplies at the rate of over 4 million pounds in 10 weeks. On December 27th, the Japanese attacked. 12 brand new P-38s were dispatched to intercept the invading force of 28 zeros and bombers. When the score was finally added up, the P-38s had claimed 11 Japanese fighters and bombers shot down. The P-38s made a dramatic debut in southwest Pacific operations. At the same time in North Africa, the veteran battle-trained Luftwaffe was confident of easy victory over inexperienced American air units. Luftwaffe pilots attacked Allied supply harbors and airfields. The Allies suffered heavy losses. In February of 1943, Rommel's Africa Corps attacked. After eight days of attack, the Axis Initiative was exhausted. The Allies squeezed the Axis forces into a steadily smaller pocket and the Germans relied on aerial transport planes to bring in supplies and move key personnel back to Sicily.  An Allied force spotted them and a flight of 13 P-40s with RAF Spitfires flying cover dove on the German transports to split them up. When the attack was over, Allied aircraft had destroyed 58 German transports and 18 fighters. This was indicative of the Allied air superiority, which ultimately led to the defeat of Rommel's Africa Corps. In the Far East, on another front, supplies were barely trickling through to General Chinalt's 14th Air Force. The situation called for flying the Humphre, carrying supplies from India over the Himalayas into China. C-46s and 47s carried tons of food and medicine, gasoline and bombs over the highest mountains in the world. On August 17, 1943, the 8th Bomber Command in England prepared 376 B-17s for an attack on two critical targets, the Messerschmitt Factory at Regensburg and the ball bearing plants at Schweinfurt, both deep in Germany. Destruction of these targets would greatly affect Germany's capacity to wage war. There was no doubt it would bring out a large scale and costly air battle. As soon as the bombers got into formation over Britain, they were picked up by German radar. The Luftwaffe plotted the American course and sent up German fighters to intercept the B-17s. In spite of fierce opposition which destroyed 24 bombers, the 4th Bomb Wing severely damaged the Nazi's Messerschmitt Factory at Regensburg, dropping over 300 tons of high explosive and incendiary bombs. The 1st Bomb Wing successfully bombed Schweinfurt and although the Nazis knocked 36 bombers out of the sky, the B-17s never broke formation. The bombers delivered 400 tons of high explosives getting he-hits on the two main ball bearing plants. The Schweinfurt-Regensburg operations were costly to the Allies, but proved to be a severe blow to German war efforts. In the Pacific with Allied forces firmly holding northeast New Guinea and the Solomons, General MacArthur and Admiral Halsey could now threaten Roball, the Japanese main supply center on New Britain Island. The objective was to neutralize planes and anti-aircraft guns, smash the air-dromes around Roball, and destroy the concentration of military shipping in Simpson Harbor. B-25 bombers flying low to avoid detection went in first to hit Japanese airfields. Paving the way for the attack on the harbor, American fighters ran into more than 40 Japanese interceptors. At Roball, American forces bombed 24 ships, strait 17, and destroyed over 100 Japanese aircraft, mostly on the ground. In the space of 12 minutes, a formidable Japanese sea and air armada was attacked and decisively defeated. In England, the 8th Air Force planned for a massive attack on German industry, October 9th, 1943, the Fokker Wolf Aircraft Factory at Marionburg, the Erado Factory at Anklam, shipyards at Danzig, and port facilities at Gdynia. The routes were carefully plotted to minimize flak and fighter interference. The going was rough, but the bombers got through and pounded to Anklam, Gdynia, Danzig, and Berlinburg. Our work in these German war plants came to a sudden and violent stop, or was severely reduced. The 12th Air Force, forged in Africa, tempered in Pantelleria, and bloodied in Sicily, now faced a big test in Italy, which was defended by 24 tough German divisions. The defeat of Germany's forces called for steady ground pressure organized with strong airstrikes. Blocking the way to Rome were mine fields and occupied villages protected by tanks. From mountain to mountain, village to village, the action was bitter. At the battle of the Abbey of Monte Casino, American aircraft bombed the observation post in the heavily fortified town of Casino. To crack the Gustav line, 12th and 15th Air Force bombers delivered a series of blows against rail yards, tracks, trains, and particularly the more than 40,000 bridges in Italy. Within seven weeks, air power choked off the German supply line and the 5th Army cracked the Gustav line. The road to Rome was opened at last, and the eternal city opened its arms.


Two things to remember about those tank traps, which are the oceans, the Atlantic and the Pacific. And that is what Robert Kaplan, the great author and one of my favorites says in Asia's Cauldron, the tyranny of distance and the stopping power of water. And the only way for the United States to project its power and to maintain stability and security with all of these incredible alliances that we have out in the Pacific and in NATO is to be able to have a strong forward presence and primarily a naval presence. Now you'll note that I am a naval officer, so I am slightly biased. If you think about what happened just prior to the war in Ukraine, December of 21, before February 22 in the attack, we had three ships in the Black Sea. The USS Mount Whitney, my favorite ship, my command ship when I was six-fleet, Arleigh Burke and Porter. And we pulled them out so as not to exacerbate Vladimir Putin and not to push him into attacking Ukraine. Well, he did anyway. And we created a new normal of virtual presence. Ladies and gentlemen, virtual presence is actual absence, so we have to be there.


Hey there, lads and ladies, it is Petrifying Pumpkins here and I am back with another PSVR video, PS, well, slash PSVR 2. So in this one, as you can probably see behind me, I'm going to be making tiers, but this is going to be based on the PlayStation first-party studios that I think are going to be, you know, most likely to be working on a PSVR game in the future. So PSVR 2 most likely, and like the likelihood of that happening ranked from, you know, from definitely all the way down to, you know, now a chance in hell, never going to happen. So few caveats I should mention. I have included blue point games here, even though it hasn't officially been confirmed that they will be a first-party studio, but there was that huge leak from the Sony Japan Twitter account, so they're almost certainly going to be a first-party studio, not that it's going to matter too much for this list. Anyway, I've also included the recent edition house mark and Nix's. So Nix's and Sony X-Dev are kind of going to be also weird kind of companies to talk about, but I guess we'll talk about them when we talk about them. So yeah, I just want to go through each studio, which ones I think are going to be like most likely or least likely or maybe or definitely or unlikely or probably or whatever to give us some first-party support in the next generation PlayStation virtual reality headset, whatever that thing is going to be called. Let's get into it, shall we? Starting with, I guess we'll start in order of what we see here, blue point. So I'm putting blue point in the unlikely pile. The reason I'm doing that is, well first of all, they might not actually even be a Sony first-party, but let's assume that they will be. Let's assume that that leak was raised and that nothing changed. These guys are famous for remaking games. Now that's not to say that they can't remake a PlayStation classic such as Resistance or Killzone or something like that and then add virtual reality mode onto that, but what I will say is they've got absolutely no history with virtual reality. I don't think they've ever even spoken about us publicly that I can recall, like they've never mentioned anything like that, and there is not going to be a huge amount of virtual reality games out there for them to go back in the PlayStation catalog and pull from. I mean, what are they going to do? You know remaster or remake London Heist? I don't think so. Maybe in a few generations, next generation maybe, but blue point I think they're pretty straightforward. I think they're going to be making flat games for the PS5. Obviously things can change, maybe they'll be allowed to make the wrong game for Sony and then Sony will be like whatever you want to do and then they'll be like, well actually we have a secret passion for virtual reality. I just don't see it happening. Next up then is Sony's London Studio and these are the guys who made, they basically launched the PlayStation virtual reality headset. The one that we have now, they were behind PSVR worlds, they were behind London Heist, they're currently hiring for a new project. Now a lot of people seem to think that that new project isn't virtual reality, but I find it very hard to think that they're not going to be involved with PSVR 2 when that comes out because they were so integral with PSVR 1. Sony are going to be like, okay well we can't not have these guys involved, it will be baffling to me that they wouldn't be involved. So I'm going to put them definitely. Sony London Studios definitely have to be working on PSVR 2 something. We will see something from them on PSVR 2 and if we don't I'll make a poo on live stream. I'll have a camera in my toilet, I'll live stream me making a poo, I'll get banned. I'll end the channel basically because my credibility will be gone down the toilet with that poo. But yeah I will be shocked, utterly shocked. Let's say maybe they work on like a new gas away game and it becomes massively successful and they never go back to virtual reality again. I suppose that's possible, I just don't see it. Even if they were to work on a new gas away, I'm like, Sony be like, okay you have to put a virtual reality mode in this for the new headset, they have to have that support from somewhere. And Sony London is just the most obvious choice, I can't think of anyone more obvious than them. So I think most of you would agree with me on that one. Next up then is Guerrilla Games and this is where it gets a bit murky. Of course there used to be a studio called Guerrilla Cambridge and they made rigs, mechanized combat league. So there was an element of Guerrilla that did have some involvement in the past with virtual reality. That studio got shuttered since because rigs was a failure. I wish they didn't shutter that studio. God knows we need as much first party support on the ps4 as possible. There's also the rumors that have been circulating for a good while now. There's there's a Horizon game, Horizon Zero Dawn or Horizon Forbidden West spinoff or something like that. In the works for a virtual reality headset, the next gen virtual reality headset from Sony. But it is Sony London who are kind of been linked with that one, if I remember correctly, so not actually Guerrilla themselves. Personally speaking, I think I'm gonna put Guerrilla in the maybe pile. I mean, I don't see it happening. Not with Horizon. The next game up from them is going to be Horizon Forbidden West. That's almost certainly not going to have any virtual reality mode. But maybe the next game after that could be Return to Killzone, which is where their kind of roots are. And then I could definitely see the potential for them integrating a virtual reality mode by the time that comes along. If there is a new Killzone, maybe they'll stick with Horizon. But if there is a new Killzone, we're talking maybe four years time, five years time, that's going to be right in the middle of the ps4 or two's lifespan or maybe even towards the tail end of us. So they're going to have access to a far more powerful headset. It might just be a case of it will be flash. And you can also have it in virtual reality if you want, which is kind of like a feeling that I'm getting that a lot of these games are going to be Resident Evil 7 style, which works well and kind of keeps everyone happy. But yeah, they're by no means probably and by no means definitely. But I wouldn't go far as far as to say unlikely. You know, they are one of the key studios from Sony. And if Sony are going to be serious about PSVR, and they really need to be with PSVR 2, this is going to be the big one if PSVR 2 flops, or if it performs the same way PSVR 1 does or has done, I think that's probably going to be it. They might put that on ice for a little while, kind of like with the visa. Sony have kind of moved away from handheld gaming now for a while. Maybe they will go back to us at some stage. Maybe if virtual reality fails, they'll go back to handheld again, give that another shot. But I don't know. I think if they really want to be serious, they have to get some big guns and gorillas, one of their biggest guns in the mix. Now might not face Horizon, that's fine, but kills on seems like a perfect opportunity for them. Okay, so Housemarque are next. This is difficult. We know Housemarque's history is with arcadey games. But nearly all of their games have been like critically successful, but commercial failures. And that has led them to kind of being forced to give up those arcade dreams. And then they've moved on to like bigger AAA stuff, which is kind of like what Returnal is. Although if you ask me, Returnal kind of feels very arcadey as well. So they still definitely have that blood in there. It seems like their future is going to be expanded like they're not going to be making small titles anymore. It's going to be bigger and bigger from now on. Is that going to include virtual reality to some degree? I mean, it's going to be impossible to say really, to be honest, because for one thing, they were only just acquired by Sony. That was only just announced. I mean, it's not like Blue Point or Blue Point are just known for remakes and remasters and it'll kind of be surprising if they do anything other than remakes and remasters for Sony. Housemarque, you're going to expect them to do something new, but also you kind of know what you get with Housemarque.  I don't know about Housemarque. I mean, I don't know about any of these, obviously. It's hard to see them going virtual reality at the same time now that they've been acquired by Sony. Maybe there's going to be extra incentive or maybe, dare I say, pressure from Sony on these developers to, you know, they might say, look, make whatever game you want. But if there is a possible way you can like shoehorn in virtual reality to some degree, even if it's just a side mode or whatever, please do that if you can. That's kind of like what I would imagine Sony will be asking of its first party studios. As long as it doesn't affect the development of the actual game itself and it doesn't take too much resources away or whatever. Got them in the maybe pile. Thinking about putting this in the unlikely pile, boss. I think maybe because it's such an unknown quantity right now, Housemarque and Sony, who knows what their next game will be, Returnal 2. I mean, Returnal did have those first person sequences, you know, they could work very well in virtual reality. Would the rest of their game style work in virtual reality, where it's all very fast paced, 360 degrees of action going on, I don't know. But then again, maybe their next game won't be anything like that at all. So I guess it has to go in the maybe, but I'm going to keep it on the tail end of the maybe, you know, it's closer to unlikely than Gorilla is to maybe if you know what I mean. Next up is Insomniac Games. If you ask me, Insomniac Games are quickly becoming.  Insomniac are challenging them for that title. I think the quality and the quantity and the speed that their output in their games won't be surprised if Insomniac become Sony's crown jewel in the next three years or so. Sony acquired them in 2019 or something like that recently enough. Before that, they were working on virtual reality titles. They're like a big studio. I think they've got like two separate locations, multiple teams then within those locations. So what was it, Stormland or Stormlands or Stormland or something like that that they were working on on.  Wasn't looking at that. But we know they've got up some degree of passion there for virtual reality. It's hard to suspect that Sony, when they were purchasing Insomniac, weren't fully aware that Insomniac could be one of the best studios to help push PlayStation virtual reality to when that launch is late 2022 or whenever it comes up probably late 2022. So I think Insomniac are definitely, I don't think they're as sure as London studios. Like I'm almost certain London studio will do another like a demo disc type thing again at launch. I'll be surprised if there isn't something like that. But yeah, Insomniac, I mean they have to, they have to do something. You can't buy Insomniac for $229 million and they've met this like supposedly very good virtual reality game over on PC and you can't ignore that. I assume Insomniac own the IP, maybe Acus do. I'd have to look into that. So maybe they couldn't, even if it's just a port of that game, if they do own the IP. Again, I'm not sure about that, but they do own IPs like Sunset Overdrive. So something like that could come to virtual reality or brand new IP. It wouldn't really matter.  It doesn't have to be an established IP, ratchet and clank, whatever. I don't care. I'm in. Okay, next up, media molecule. Now this, you know, I'm kind of surprised with the amount of definitely is I'm putting up here, but this is kind of cheating. So media molecule, I'm putting in the definitely, but that's only because of dreams. Dreams is already else. It already supports PlayStation Virtual Reality 1. I think dreams is something that media molecule are going to be supporting for like, probably all of the PS5's life cycle. Unless something changes, I just feel like that's, they're like they're building this platform. They still have to add multiplayer and then I'm certain when PS4 or two drops, I mean, they're going to be wanting to take advantage of those fancy orb controllers and stuff. So yeah, they're definitely and they, but at the same time, I mean, it's kind of cheating. I mean, if they update dreams specifically for PS4 or two, then I will consider that as like, you know, it counts their support. That's what this list is the devs that are going to support it or make a game for us or whatever. So yeah, I'm putting media molecule up there. But if Sony were to stop and say, okay, dreams has had its chance, it's not going anywhere. We're not even going to bother making it free to play, which I think they would do that first before pulling the plug completely. But let's say they do this, would media molecules next game have virtual realities for it? I'd say maybe probably, but no, I put that in the maybe and then in that instance, I would put it in maybe not even a probably, you know, it would be down here somewhere, probably in front of gorilla. Boss, I'm still counting dreams. So it's coming up here. Dreams PS5 or dreams director's cut, whatever they call it. Okay, next up is Nazi dog. The developers have inherited the last of us. I'm putting a Nazi dog in the unlikely category, but ahead of blue point.  I think they've got to the stage now where they say, okay, Sony, this is what we want to do. And Sony are like, fine, you're the best, you do whatever you want. So Neil Druckmann, I believe is president there now, and I don't think he's ever shown any interest in virtual reality whatsoever. Could it be that I have no idea what I'm talking about?  So you better do it. Maybe boss, I don't think that's how Sony operates. I think they give them a little bit of freedom, especially Nazi dog, you let them do whatever they want to do because what they've been doing, everything to touch turns to gold, whether whatever your opinion on the last was part two, you know, in general. So they've earned freedom, creative freedom. So that's why things unlikely, but I'm not going to rule it out either. So next up then is this Nix's studio. So this studio was boss, almost the same time as Housemarque, or at least it was announced. And this is a small studio. And what I believe they specialize in is PC ports. So I don't think they're going to be creating any new games themselves. I think what they're going to be doing is helping Sony port games from Guerrilla, games from, you know, Insomniac, whatever to PC when they eventually go there. So the likes of Horizon Forbidden West, let's say that gets a PC port in three years time, they'll be working on that. So for that reason, I would put them in a no way. Because even if they were to port a PlayStation Virtual Reality 2 game to PC, that's still not them supporting PSV or two. It's just moving the game. They're supporting PC viewer at that stage. So that's why I'm putting them in a no way. They don't really count. And I don't really have much else to say about Nix's, at least not in this context. Next up then is Pixel Opus. This could be, well, maybe Nix's is the smallest one, but Pixel Opus are probably like one of the smallest studios that Sony have. Once they put out last gen Concrete Genie, they put that game out last generation, which people liked. People who played it liked. Problem is not a lot of people played us. It was kind of like artsy, indie-ish. However, key thing to notice is that it did have a PSV or mode. It was a separate thing and it was like very limited, but it was like a paint and mini game thing or whatever. So if you were to ask me what Pixel Opus be working on a PSV or two game, I'm going to say probably. Not deafness, but probably. They've shown it in the past. You know where Sony would maybe give creative freedom to Nausie Dog to do whatever they want. They're looking at Pixel Opus. They're not usually successful. And maybe they're saying, okay guys, you need to put a virtual reality mode in whatever your next game is or maybe make it virtual reality entirely. Because those stuff you're doing is just not working first. I don't know. Again, I don't know the nitty gritty, but I feel like just because they got the history of already doing this in Concrete Genie, I think there's the potential for it to happen again, hopefully to a more expanded degree and not just a little add on mode. So next up, people say Polyphony Digital, but I always call them Polyphony, but I guess Polyphony. Maybe that's the American way of saying it. I don't know. But these are the guys who make Gran Turismo. Gran Turismo Sport did have a virtual reality mode. It was incredibly disappointing. Well, it was good, but it was so limited. It was like one AI, no online. It was just disappointing, really. However, Gran Turismo 7 is on the horizon and it would be very shocking. If that game does not have PSVR 2 support, I'm putting this in the definitely, and I'm putting this higher than Insomniac. If Gran Turismo 7 does not have VR support, I mean, come on, what are you doing? Why did you bother with doing it with sport? And the reason why you didn't do it properly in sport is because the PSVR 1 couldn't handle it. The PS4 couldn't handle it. You're going to next gen now. You're getting a PS5, you're getting a new headset. All the hardware is going to be there. You can do it properly now. You're owned by the platform that owns the VR headset, so they surely will be pushing for that to happen as well, because they want a headset that's going to be supported by some of the best games ever, and Gran Turismo is one of the best-selling games out there, especially in Europe. People love some Gran Turismo, so that name will carry a lot of ways. I'll be shocked if Gran Turismo 7 does not have VR support, and disappointed. Next up is Sony San Diego, or San Diego Studios. Yeah, San Diego Studios. I read that incorrectly. So these guys, for the last, I don't know how long. I'm going to say 10 years for handiness sake have been making nothing but baseball games, MLB, the show games, so you're probably thinking to yourself, no chance. However, I'm going to throw a curveball, pun intended, and I'm going to stick them in the maybe pile, ahead of Gorilla. No, not ahead of Gorilla. Ahead of House Merc, though. And the reason I'm saying maybe is, since the last MLB the show, they're no longer allowed to make them exclusive. If they want to keep the license, they have to also provide these games to Xbox and other platforms that are able to run them. So Sony are making games for Xbox, thanks to this deal, thanks to this one specific game, MLB the show.  On PS5, they were selling it for $70. It kind of made Sony look stupid, you know, the way it worked out. A bit of clever marketing from Phil Spencer and Microsoft as well to make them look a bit bad too. So if this is what they're forced to do from now on, if they want to hold onto the slice license, which I assume they do, or as they wouldn't agree to it in the first place, they're probably going to want to look at any way possible to make the PlayStation version of MLB the show seem better than the Xbox version. So maybe one way they could do that will be to add a virtual reality mode into MLB the show on PS5, offer it to Xbox, Xbox to like, we don't support virtual reality. Sony are like, well, it's not our fault. We tried, you know, and then all of a sudden you've got the PlayStation version having more value or more features at least than the Xbox version. Not a lot of people don't care about virtual reality yet. So maybe that's one sneaky way they could add a bit of value to that. I don't know. Is there some clause that there has to be absolute parasy between the two versions? If so, that might not work. And then, you know, it's all the way down in the no way. But I like that little scenario I've come up with in my head. And I'm keeping us. All right. Next up, Sony Santa Monica Studios. The creators of God of War. That's like their big thing. God of War. We know God of War Ragnarok is coming out next year. This is kind of in the same league to me as Gorilla, because we know God of War is not going to have virtual reality mode. More than likely. But the thing now is what's going to happen after God of War. Are they going to just go straight into another God of War? Are they going to freshen things up? There's like been rumors of a long time now of like a sci-fi game that they're working on a new IP first person. If that's all true, virtual reality could fit in there nicely too. And of course, these Sony owned studios, if there's probably an opportunity for virtual reality to work fit in in a way that makes sense. Herman Hose might be saying, okay, let's see what we can do about virtual reality. So I'm putting them in the maybe. Definitely. You can't say probably. You can't. Well, you could probably say unlikely, but I'm just looking at unlikely now and I've got a Nazi dog there. I'm trying to think to myself, well, why would they be unlikely and not Sony Santa Monica? So because I don't know what this new IP is, and we don't know if it even exists, I'm bringing them down. But a little bit ahead of Nazi dog, I feel like they're probably a bit more open to it than Nazi dog. Just going by God instinct. Don't know how I feel about that though.  Without any reason. I mean, with gorilla, we know they've got kills on. With Sony Santa Monica, we don't know what else they have. With Nazi dog, we don't know what else they have outside of glass. They're not going to go back to uncharted. Maybe a different studio will take up that and keeping it there for now. Maybe we'll change your mind later on. Next up, Bend Studio, the guys behind Days Gone, Open World. We know Days Gone 2 is not happening because that whole instant they got leaked where Sony were like, no, no Days Gone 2. Days Gone 1 wasn't good enough, I guess, for them. They wanted Bend Studio to work on an uncharted sequel, but Bend didn't want to. So instead, they pitched a new IP that would also be Open World. And they're working on that right now. And they've only just started development on that right now. I think whatever that game is, it's going to be building on Days Gone. Obviously not the same zombies, post-apocalypse stuff, but find it hard to picture it being open or virtual reality, whatever it is they're working on. So I'm going to put them behind Nazi dog in the unlikely pile. The new game's Open World. I mean, we don't know much else about it, really. But no indication of virtual reality. And a lot of stuff was getting leaked about Bend at the time. Maybe if virtual reality was in the mix, that would have gotten leaked as well. But nothing was. So I'm leaving this unlikely. Next up, Sucker Punch. I'm putting these guys straight into the unlikely. And the reason for that is because I think they really found a winning formula with Ghost of Tsushima. I can see them doing Ghost of Tsushima after Ghost of Tsushima, after Ghost of Tsushima from now on. Maybe alternating between single player, multiplayer, single player, multiplayer, I don't know. But I just do not see them go on virtual reality at all. I find that hard to picture. The only thing that makes me hesitant is that they did briefly support the move controller on infamous 2 or whatever it was where you could aim with the move controller. So they are open to supporting these things. Then again, no. I think if they do alternate between Ghost of Tsushima and a different IP, that IP is probably going to be infamous. What infamous work in virtual reality are an infamous style game. Keeping us unlikely, but maybe less unlikely than the rest. Team Asobi next. These guys used to be Sony Japan. They became Team Asobi. These are the guys behind Astro Bus. So you would imagine they have to be up here. They have to be. So anytime a new peripheral comes with the PS PlayStation system. So the PlayStation 4 was the camera. They did playroom for that. And then the PS VR came out. They did like a viewer playroom. And then they did the full fledged Astro Bot rescue mission. PS5 came out. And then they did the Astros playroom. Astro, what's it called? Whatever. The one that shows off the new controller on the PS5. You know, that's what they did recently. Everything they touch seems to be well received. Everyone likes this. And of course, like Astro Bot really got the spotlights in rescue mission under appreciated because not many people plays because it's PlayStation VR exclusive. But I mean, it just seems like a no brainer that these guys are going to be working on not just a PS VR 2 game, but almost certainly an Astro Bot sequel for the PS VR 2. And I'll be shocked if it's not there. Last one then is kind of a bum, a bummer, because it's they're kind of like the same guys as Nix's X-Dev. These external development studios, they're kind of we put them a little bit ahead here, but they help other studios. They don't make their own games. So they're not going to make their own virtual reality game. They might help studios make virtual reality game. I think they were helping think they helped out with Wipo's Omega collection, but they helped bring that to virtual reality. So I'm sure they probably will help one of these other studios bring a game to viewer, but they won't do one themselves. They're like a support studio. That is all of the studios, 16 studios, two of them support studios, not really counted. And then the rest here, I'm not sure if I like some of these. Maybe I should combine these two together. Maybe and the unlikely. Maybe I'd feel better about it then. I'm just looking at one, giving a little a final look over to see if there's nothing I'd change. Definitely happy with my definitely list. These top five up here. All of these would surprise me if they don't do viewer. Maybe on some, they actually be at the end, I guess, because it is possible they'll be in too much demand to make another Spider-Man, another Ratchas, that they won't have time to do a smaller viewer title or whatever, but I'd still be very shocked if they don't pixel opus. I think they probably will, because of the history with Concrete Genie. I still just feel they probably will.   There could be an additional mode that has PS viewer to support, but then that would count, you know? And the same could be said for Annie of these. You know, maybe Ghost of Tsushima has like a sword slicing minigame. Fruit Ninja, you know? Yeah, I guess that's why I do this, so that you can see what I think, tell me, okay, either that makes sense, or that's a stupid reason, or this should be here, that should be down there, etc. etc. I would have done this live if I could, but I couldn't. So I can't, and it's not. So yeah, let me down below what you think of this list, what you would change. Anyway, waffling on with too much. Thanks for watching this video, lads and ladies. Do appreciate it very much in particular. Let me thank the Patreon supporters whose names are on the screen as we speak. Thanks to their generosity, they're helping keep this channel nice and moist. Let me give a huge shout out to the following top tier Patreon supporters, Tradition, Pete Hawkins, Daniel the Pumpkin Patch Kid, and Crumb. Thanks very much, lads, for that generosity. It really is appreciated. If you'd like to help me out over on the Patreon, the link will be in the description below. Finally, let me give a thank you to Decepticon for letting me use his music. In all of these videos, you can check him on Decepticon.com. Link to him in the description also. With that out of the way, I will end this video. Thanks very much for watching. I'll see you in the next one. Please stay nice and moist.