Hey guys, we are here with another Monday with DecoArt and we're gonna work on another painting. I'm gonna show you a couple different ways to prep your painting. So I want to work on one with a black background, but that might be a little intimidating I was thinking for some of you out there. So just stop. Don't turn the video off and don't give it a thumbs down because of course, you know, I've got some tips and tricks. Of course I do. So to start with whatever surface that you decide to use and it could be a piece of cardboard from some packaging. It could be chipboard. This is a canvas board from Michael's. This is artist loft brand and it actually had something else on it and I just sewed over it. So that's the other thing. Maybe you want to do this on a piece of artwork that you did that you don't like. So and you just want to start over. That's what Gesso is for. Well, one of the things it's for and DecoArt of course has this really great media line of paints and things and they have a Gesso and they have white and they have black and it's a little it's a bit thicker than what I'm used to working with but I actually like that because it covers really well. And I was pretty impressed with both the white and the black. You could do this on a journal page too and again if it has something on there and see this is still white because I just did the white not long ago. If it has something else on there that you don't, you know, like then just just sew over it and start with a clean slate. Now if you are new to the idea of painting and drawing, I recommend that you do white because the prep work is going to be a little bit easier. If you want a bit more of a challenge then black. Now both of these are old pieces of artwork that I have Gessoed over. This one was a painting. This one actually was a mixed media piece and you can tell because you can see some of the collages poking through. I'm OK with that. It did have some 3D objects on it. I use some hand sanitizer, which has alcohol in it and I just sprayed a bunch of it on there and let it soak for a couple minutes and then everything just popped right off. Except for some of the paper, but that's OK without damaging the canvas and then I just Gessoed over the whole thing and then Gessoed didn't cover perfectly. I'm OK with that. We're going to just let it go and we're going to work on top of it. All right, so first I'm going to show you how to prep something that's white because this process is a little easier than working on the black. So you don't know how to draw. You want to maybe give this a try. Never fear. There's a trick around that. So you need your surface. You're going to work on it now. If you're going to work on a board or a page, this process is a little easier. If you're going to work on a canvas like this, where it has, you know, this spot in the middle where you've got this like half inch gap between the canvas and the frame, the back of the frame. When you try to do this next step on it, this is going to flex. So what I recommend is you put a book under there, find a book or something hard so that when you press on it, the canvas doesn't flex because that's going to be important. In this case, I'm going to choose to work on a canvas board, which is what I would recommend.  If you're going to do it this way because it's a little easier. I'm going to need a piece of carbon paper, old fashioned carbon paper. Yes, you can still find it at some art supply stores and office supply stores. Sometimes they call it transfer paper. It's still carbon paper. It looks like this on the one side and then it's covered in black carbon or, you know, kind of like pencil, same kind of stuff in pencil lead on the other side. So put the dark side down, light side up, then go to my website. The link will be in the description below. It's www.ginabearans.com. I have a new page there full of inspiration photos. Print one of them. In this case, we have this photo that I took on a recent road trip to Sonora, California of St. Michael's Catholic Church in Livermore and I took it. I literally had my hand hanging out the window of the car snapping away with my cell phone. I got to stop doing that because one of these days I'm going to drop my phone and that's going to be so bad. Anyway, I took the picture and the original pictures on my website. But I took the picture and then when I was had a few free moments, okay, I was bored. I was bored. I used one of my apps in my iPhone and I altered the photo. This particular app is called Auto Painter and it has four different style of painterly effects it can give your photos. This one is the Van Gogh style and I liked it so much the way it turned out. I thought when I got home I thought we have got to do something with that. So we're going to. So print out your photo roughly the same size as the board that you're going to work on. This one's a little bit smaller but that's okay. We'll make it work. Lay it on top of your carbon paper and then we're going to just trace all of our shapes. So I'm going to just trace around all the important shapes that we have here on the picture and just take some time and just trace around all of them. It doesn't have to be a perfect tracing. You want to just give yourself a guide of where everything is going to go so that when you finish your painting it has some sort of resemblance or feeling from the original inspiration photo. One of the things I like about this particular photo is nothing is straight and even so it should make it a little easier. You kind of want to do no straight lines because there's no straight lines in this. All right so you're going to do something like that and when you're done you're going to get that on there. All right so I'm going to keep tracing and I'm going to fast forward. I'll be right back. There is our traced image on our white background and you definitely could get started with something like this. I will also show you though if you want to be a little more challenged let me show you how to do it on a black background. So here is our other canvas with the black background and you need a white pencil. This is just a white color pencil and an expensive brand. I need a book that fits inside the cavity of my painting. That one's a little bit too big. Let's try this one. Nope, you're that. That's okay. So like I said we need something we can press on. So with my inspiration photo right to the side I'm going to take my white pencil and I'm going to sketch the approximate location of the shapes that I see on the photo. Now of course you could do something similar this way but you're going to want something other than the black transfer paper. You could maybe go to the now if if you're a sewer and you have sewing transfer paper that comes in colors and one of the colors is white but I think it's a little hard to find and I actually don't have any. I don't do that much sewing anymore. You definitely could do the transfer process on here if you have white transfer paper. I don't so I'm going to use a pencil and I'm going to just sketch it. I'm going to start with these I think these were actually like foam wires or something. Now and this isn't about being things being in the exact same place as they are in the photo. This is about giving yourself a guide. Okay something to work with that's our tree. So then I'm going to come down here and I'm going to guesstimate about where this other tree would be. I'm just going to just draw a rough follow the lines around and you may not get it exactly right that's okay it's not about getting it exactly right. I want you to take some time in this first part of this what's going to be this video series and I want you to figure out how you want to prep your canvas. Don't be intimidated definitely if you want to just do some tracing and start on white if that's what you want to do do that there's nothing wrong with that and then join me next in part two we will start working on our painting and use what you have I'm going to be using deco art traditions artist acrylic paints in a variety of blues reds greens yellows and then some neutrals black white and a couple shades of brown all right. So have that ready for part two which will be coming up shortly and don't forget to go out and have a great day like share and subscribe comment if you need to or want to and if you have questions or concerns my contact information is in the description below and if you'd like to send me happy mail or a product to try or something like that my PO box is down there too don't forget to have a great day and do something nice for yourself you deserve it I'll see you later bye.


Do you want to make a difference in the world? Alleviate human suffering. Protect human dignity. Then a minor in humanitarian action is calling you. Combine it with other fields of study to develop a unique skill set. Prepare yourself for real world humanitarian situations through hands-on trainings, service learning and immersion experiences in the United States and developing countries, briefings at the United Nations, internships with international nonprofits, crisis simulations and disaster preparedness. Be the change the world needs. Join humanitarian action now.


izgleda, da smo počučili objez, ali nekaj smo počečili, in da smo počučili in posledali nekaj možnjih in rečenih, zato sem da priključila izgleda, da se počečili. V prvoju, da je povrstal, da je se v ročetnih povede očenom, tako z toh, ko je veremente vsakovite dobroje, povede najhto z vsej zgodni, pri zelo, pri doberment, pri vsoj即etnik, pri zelo, ali pri dobermenti očetniku, pri zelo, To je projekto, ki je vzgleda za 2 leti, je od 2011 do 2013. In zato je počkala, da je zelo vzgleda, da je vzgleda, da je vzgleda, that do some follow-up work, which involves also publishing the book about migrating applications in an office platform. So it's integrating applications in a later office. Jeste na angarijem, ali v srečniku mužu, moj je inočno, kot da se je zelo, vse je zelo očetno. Načo je zelo, da se je izvizila, tako, da je tukaj zelo. Tako, to je začunit za ovoj obriženje, in v Afrike administracije, vzelo, in zato vsočenje in vsočenje. Zato smo zelo prišli o aplikacijama, ki so inšljene in vsočenje. V momentu, na vsej pravnji proces, to je tudi vsočenje, zato prej vzijeli v zelo, ki je ozvoljeno formacijo in vse objev, daje vsega, in je to tudi zelo, da je taj viziv. Tudi to je več zelo, da je ozvoljeno formacijo, ker in tudi te aplikacije ne zelo, v zezuputnih standarskev. Vstupanje o taj sądveni je izgledati vse aplikacije z vsem katom вещami zelo. Več, taj vse disk vse posleda sem evoč kaj pogledaj se použet o časem vsega protikacije. kaj je tukaj izgleda, kako je tukaj izgleda tukaj aplikacije v pravnih legovi. Tukaj in aplikacije je obačen. OVT-5 je tukaj obačen. Zato je bilo izgleda izgleda, kako objevajte začnega aplikacije, vzgleda in vzgleda. Zato je izgleda izgleda, kako objevajte začnega aplikacije vzgleda in vzgleda vzgleda. Zato je bilo vzgleda, kako objevajte začnega aplikacije, vzgleda, kako objevajte začnega aplikacije, začnega aplikacije in zelo vzgleda, zelo vzgleda, kako objevajte začnega aplikacije. slob, čava, in ozno sišak was mentioned because of the organic public administration, there was a sišak application development as well. This slide shows both civic, čak both civic, which demonstrates a problem that they encountered. Under windows, the process looked like the application called in the office and waited for until it released the file and then did the file. The problem is that while under windows the file looking was a reliable method for windows in persons, so you need to handle the situation differently under windows and windows. There is the setting point of the čava, in that you write the files everywhere, yet the application developers managed to write windows only in the čava code. These problems have to be handled accordingly. Under windows the system specific setting point and under windows the other one. This has to be documented, which was an application that developers usually have no experience on any other system than windows. We followed all the private offices and we know the advantages and we are all enthusiastic about the project however the other people are not. We need to explain first about the private offices and what is it good for and about the government foundation. We need to explain the advantages of the open source in general that's why čava is also written in this point. The experience course and then application developers and operators know only a little about the private office project in the open source then they will not fully support the violation so they will think that it's a central policy which was forced on them and they will think that one day it will be office and the next day it will be full bar of these and they don't care much about the violation project. We need to emphasise that this is not a forced thing but it is a good move that the cathedral will benefit from. The plans and all the attention that the English version of this tradition is grand, but first the under inversion has extended more examples and more software that can handle or only if they interact with the private office. For example, the newest version of the Hansberg statue library can handle only if they perform it directly and so it has to be documented. The next step that we need to write is the magnificent guide for new office users and only a few hours of the training was held for new users which concentrated on the management of Microsoft Office in the office. Pretty much I wanted to tell you about this book and you have the names of the people who participated in writing and giving the answer. So you wrote my vision guide for my vision from the office too? No, we wrote a guide for application developers and system operators of the migrate existing applications which interact with office students in Microsoft Office, of the migrate these applications to the legalized platform. Those are like some macros or even applications, Java applications and we sent the documents to the office and get back the result. And this is Hungarian? Unfortunately, yes, it's Hungarian because it was a Hungarian project. As I mentioned, we planned to consider it. Is the point to get into English for a target time when that won't be available? Because that sounds too good to miss. Well, the book is stealing a little and it's just stated by a man who, instead, is gay. But, yes, so, what we wanted to call it was, as I said, the information is massively valuable, but also the information published by a government organization is also massively valuable. It's come from improving the work that's been done in the environment. This is very nice. We have the textbooks and I think three or four of them is ready to leave the office. It was very, very good and it took two years, unfortunately, to get into an end. But I hope that this will be revived to some time, but we need to get the money, basically, to get this confidence. How long does it go for it? It will take it for two years. As I said, this is the first slide. In some, of course, a bit for balance, but to get it right, that it could correct an ODT via a terminal... You can't edit, but what you can is the missed words, for example. In the missed text. Yes. And afterwards you can correct them and give it back to the ODT. There were three or five rows. Yes, yes. OK, the first example is the... It suggests that it is some inflecting mode, but I am not sure about it. I always use this console to buy the letters in the text file. I didn't drive it. It's possible to get it, but we got it. I think it's just the pins, the tags and you said the tags as it does for html for the food tank, but the library itself can be included. This is just a common line. If you follow the DLL or something like this, you can use... Yes. You can also see that you can also see the lines and the other versions. Thank you.


In this module, we shall have a general discussion on the treatment of donations in Islam. This discussion or conversation is important because many people have an objection to the use of the borough in the kafir. Similarly, there is a criticism of use of something similar to the borough which is called gift in the context of Ijara wa Ikhtina as well. There are quite a few structures being used in Islamic banking and finance where an asset is given for free to a party by one party as part of the structure. And many critics, they say that this does not look good. In the context of the kafir, many people say that these donations on which you have built this whole model of the kafir, they should benefit other people. What is the purpose of this donation which is going to benefit me at the end? So I think it is important to clarify the treatment of donations in Islam. The first important thing is to clarify in our mind that donation is not like sadhaka. Donation is something which is of good nature and this could be for anything. Once that dam is constructed, it can benefit amir, gharib, chhota, vada, panjab ka stint ka anywhere. That donation is not for a charitable purpose only. So it should be kept in mind that a donation can actually benefit the donor as well. So this is very important that when we are looking at donations in the context of the kafir, the donors themselves, they can benefit from this. There is no problem in an Islamic framework. If Islam has no problem, then what is the problem of any other? So this is one thing. Technically, having said that, the donor himself does not benefit from the donations, especially in the case of life-takaful. Life-takaful means that the donor has died and the benefit actually goes to the beneficiaries, i.e. the bereaved family. So this criticism that you are benefiting from the donations by yourself, this does not happen. Donations in many ways do not benefit me, especially in the case of the kafir. My donations, they do not benefit me. What happens in the case of the kafir? I put 1000 rupees into the vak fund, legally, from Sharia viewpoint, that money is no more mine. Sharia, if I benefit from this one, I am not benefiting from my money, I am benefiting from the money in the vak fund. This argument we showed, actually, even if that one dollar contributed by me into the kafir fund is used in the claims, it is not necessary that that one dollar would benefit me. It would benefit others. Actually, if that one dollar, which I contribute, is going to benefit me only, then this kafir business does not work. What happens only a percentage, i.e. you and so many other people, 100,000 people have contributed into the kafir fund and the kafir fund would give benefits to only a few at a given point in time. If everyone starts giving benefits, then the kafir business is a complete insurance business. So, these donations, they actually do not benefit me, only they benefit everyone. So, this argument that donations are actually fictitious in their use, in the context of the kafir, this is not true.


I really enjoy your tone. A lot can be learned from an ability to calmly express outrage. Am I calm? Yeah, I am to a certain degree calm. This is the way it's in my old age, brother or sister, of course. Like, I don't raise my voice anymore. And one of these things I learned from Bob Ross, by the way. Right? You're the calmest Twitcher. Am I nice? Awesome. Of course, I've seen some streamers on Twitch.  Like, what the hell? You listen for a minute, you're drowning just through the roof. It's like, dude, calm down. But here's one thing I learned from Bob Ross. Bob Ross is a painter. He's awesome. Calm, big afro hair and stuff. He used to be a drill sergeant. Shit. He used to be a drill sergeant. And again, take this with a grain of salt. I'm pretty sure it was Bob Ross. I'm 99% sure I'm telling the truth now. Thanks. I looked into his history. He was a drill sergeant. He was yelling all the time, stressed out.  Bob Ross, he was right there. Love the hair, man. Love the hair. Painting clouds, happy clouds. He came out one day and he just said, I don't want to yell anymore. I'm not going to yell anymore. So he had to quit his job as a drill sergeant. You can't be a drill sergeant and allow people to sleep. You got to yell at them. And he just started painting and doing his thing. He did what he wanted to do in life. He didn't want to yell. He stopped yelling and started painting happy clouds. That's a role model. So I follow one of my role models. Bob Ross. Got to love him. Got to love him.


Trini girl natural. Hi, everyone. Welcome to my channel today. I'm highlighting a small business Mali natural beauty secrets. Let me check it out if you're curious about her hair and body products She did kindly send me a few items to try. I tried the hair items and this is the result I got a nice big fluffy hair week, which I love so it didn't say wash and go But I hadn't done the wash and going a long time so I really wanted to do one So I took the opportunity to get me a nice big hair day, which I love to rock as you guys know So let's get into the demo and I'll come back with the review so this is my hair before any product and I'm standing off with the Moisturizing detangler so my one is you with this is it's pretty runny. So I wish it was like in a spray bowl but I if I just Put in my hands and rub my palms together I can manage. I'm just used to going directly from hand to hair I have to do this rub step first because it's pretty runny So this is with the detangler This side of course has a detangler and cream. This is with the detangler so far so good And now I'm going to add the cream. So this one is the hair style and cream. I love this so far Nice texture. I don't need to worry about it running Nice texture. I like to slip on this one as well. I Love the scent on both of them. They're like sweetest sense, which I like I wish I could describe it better, but it's sweet. It could be kind of vanilla maybe like a sweet vanilla-ish type scent But it's nice and this is it all the product is in It's light and fluffy, but still defined so you can see So I'm just looking forward to seeing when it dries and I guess you are too So take a look and this is the result. It's like super light super fluffy lots of movement My hair look really great after I applied the product It was just so big that I knew it was going to turn into a big hair day Like if my hair was bigger after applying product than before But it's still I define and so on.  I love that. I was like so excited.  So this is the result you can see it's Defined but a little frizzy and big So I like it has a little bit of hole which means that I can rock this I Can rock this for a few days It's not going to be like a one-and-done type of big wash and go because sometimes when you like if it is to a leaving Depending on the leaving some difference. I think I like four days out of but depending on the leaving I mean I get that hole, but I like that it looks like I just have leaving in my hair But it also has a bit of hole. So I'll get a few days out of it. I love the shape I haven't had this shape in a long time. I love to move man. I Love it. It's not crunchy So I wish they had a little bit more moisture But overall I like and I like it. It's gonna last me a couple of days so I used her moisturizing detangler to and And her hair styling cream too And my hair was just super light and fluffy after applying these products the slip on both were nice and both smell amazing So yay for that and I actually like putting my hands in my hair So yay for that because that's kind of one of my tests The one thing I would say about it is that I wish I had a little bit more moisture the moisturizing detangler Probably should have been in the spray bottle given how runny it is Just to make it easier to put into the hair. I'm just like as a spray I think this would be moisturizing really moisturizing for a spray leaving but for a lotion leaving I wish it had a little bit more moisture the cream.  I wouldn't say I can't say I didn't much shine But I think it didn't take away any shine either. I do think my hair looks relatively Shiny my hair is not really shiny, but I can see some shine It says it's great for flexi rods, perm rods, twist outs and pony tails So I didn't really say wash and go, but I just really wanted to try a wash and go I was thinking about leaving it for the summer since I wanted to do like a big hair wash and go But I was too curious. I had to get into it So I decided to just do it now and have a little summer wash and go in the spring. So here we are Of course, if I'm trying it, you know, the ingredients are good, but I really like the ingredients Let me show you kind of have to go around the bottle. I guess. Yeah needs water with the aloe don't get it twisted. So But people who love aloe vera juice definitely give it a try and of course the rose and hibiscus, you know I love those ingredients peppermint, of course peppermint and mint Basil even great for the scalp. So I was happy to see those as well And you know cooking an oil, almond butter, shea butter, sage, bay leaf, honey, agave Like the ingredients are really good. Even that's bamboo extract in here. So Yay for the ingredients I can try and analyze the closest to what I would say it smells like, but I love the scent It's like a kind of custody creamy cherry vanilla scent even though it was very liquid It was still creamy So I didn't like it and especially was a little bit thicker or in a spray bottle And this one the ingredients are really pretty similar. There are a few differences I was surprised to see xantum gum More in this one and not in this one because I like xantum gum in my stylers, but it's also a flax seed So I was like, okay, it's good. And of course, you know me on flax seed flax seed usually gives me crunch But there's no crunch. So yay for that. So I guess it's just a touch of flax seed Not too much a good amount. Let's put it that way So I was happy with that. It provides a good amount of holes So if you're looking for a cream with hold, definitely give this a try And it works in pretty well. Like if I can put it in my try here and get it to go in That means it absorbs pretty well. So both of these products absorb well in my low porosity here So yay for that as well So this one smells slightly more buttery like a buttery version of the cherry vanilla, but it's still in that sweet milkyish custody scent which I like. I think overall I'm going to use both again, but This one would be like if I want big hair or if I want to try it in a twist out or something. This one As it is, I'd probably use it as a leave-in and then put a heavier cream over it. Together I would say I would like a little more moisture. So I would add something else to give it a little bit more moisture But that's the only thing I would say. The slip was good. I love how it smells and I love the result And she also sent me this honey lemon body balm Which smells really good and works really nicely on my skin. I'll demo this as well. Just so I can put it higher up. So you see that For me, I like it on wet skin just because it feels almost like a sealant So I like it kind of sealing in water or sealing in moisture So it starts with shea butter as the first ingredient So it's definitely more of a sealant for my skin because you know my skin is low porosity too But it also does have some honey in there and hibiscus The scent is honey lemon. I want to say it smells like ginger or something I love the scent. It smells like those lemon cookies. I just absolutely love it. This is what it looks like So it's just a yummy looking light butter So it's not whipped exactly. It's not heavy, but it's not like super fluffy Just reminds me of butter like if you have butter and regular butter out of the fridge and it's just you know Let me show you. So it absorbs really well Feels really good on your skin. Moisturizes really well And what I like about this too like using it on my hands Usually come using a more natural product and I use it on my hands If I wash my hands once my hands are dry again But this I can use it just once for the day and actually sticks around on my hands So I've been using it after the shower and just after washing my hands to keep my skin moisturized And smelling amazing. So I think I have to say the body balm is probably my favorite product of the three I would definitely use this leave-in again if it came in a spray or was a little bit thicker I also use this siling theme again. I just don't think I would put them together because This needed a little bit more. I guess they both needed more moisture so Yeah, I'll probably have to use something more moisturizing with them, but Overall, definitely no complaints and I like using them I definitely encourage you to check out the website and follow hundreds to grab and stuff like that I'll be doing that just to see what else she comes up with and like, you know Try some of the stuff because like I said the ingredients are really good. I'm glad to be like your Eye in the sky I'm glad to be bringing you to the sneak peeks of the new and upcoming products Let me know if you're one of those looking out for small businesses Are you on hc? Like I'm on hc a lot just checking them out PJ problems. Yeah, but I love products. I love all products bring them all to me See you in the next one. Bye


Okay, so we've got a bit of a contention, so I'll turn that light out. If I start turning this to the left this time, that 10K pop, oh, and we're actually burning up the solder, like that.  So I do this solder, let's pop that power back on again and just see if it's 22 watts, 20 watts. That's what it's saying over there, look. Now if I start turning that back again, if I go to the left, it's going down 15, 12 watts. If I start going back to the right, 25, 26 watts. All right, see if we can get that to, okay. And if I turn the other part to the right, that's 40 watts. Oh, I thought one of me sticks, I've never got two. So if we are getting that 22, that goes up to, did you see sort of 40 watts? So I wonder if it's possible to use this one for the little Tesla. I don't want to do it too much. I'm gonna start smelling something heating up, so let's just take the power off and do some voltage checks. Watch your eyes, do some voltage checks, temperature. That's warm enough of it. The coil, not terribly warm, voltage regulator. Mm, they should be okay. I mean, it's supposed to be five watts, but got a lot more ability to dissipate power there. But it is warm, they are warm, they're seven watts each, these resistors. But between them, it gives me just over an aim. I think it was 1.0, and sorry, 1.0, 7.4, something like that, if I remember rightly. The resistance across in, it wanted to be 1.0, about five watts. So that's good for that, and I don't think we're getting it warm. And my switch is not terribly too warm, but it's not really doing a great deal, is it? And it can go up to 18 volts this circuit. So, but I suppose that shows that it works. So do this one at 18 volts, look. You can get it to pull a nice little bit off, but in there as good as using, it doesn't jump across. That's a 122 watts, it says as well, let me show you. But 122 watts, 23, and climbing. So we probably don't want to do that too much. That's a lot of power, that's more than the other one. Now I know this is like back to front on the video. And I'm sorry, but there's like, I can't quite, it's a one hour 40 minutes of video. Without including this little bit. What's it say, 17 watts. That's nice, nice little color. And that's, as you can see, a lot of burning. It's been the paper on here, which isn't such a good thing. So I've got to try and, well, I can't, I'll have to, I don't know if you can see that, but this is a bit harder to do, so I'll have to just literally just chuck the power on. I'll have to put a little monitor to see what happens when I do that. Oh, okay, that's 18. Okay, so it works with that, 25 watts, 19 now, just sat there. And that was with, and that was with this turn, is this still sort of halfway? I turn that to the left, not quite halfway, should I put that back to about halfway? Where's this, turn it to the right, that's probably about halfway, and then I put that back to halfway-ish. Oh, if I put that out the way, that might make it a bit easier to see that, yeah. Put the power back, so that's at 13. See over there now, look, it's at 13, just sat there doing nothing. Okay, so I could use this, but I wonder if I can just get that to stay. I can't, I'm not there. Put something there. Okay, so now that's good, I can do the adjusting. So that's me turning that back counter clockwise. So that stops, I think it has. I hope it's not killed anything. I think it's quite warm, that is. I'm going to get that a bit closer, so it's like that. I hope you got to see that then. Unfortunately, I was trying to keep an eye on everything else. And these connections may not be the greatest. See what happens. It says 34 watts, but nothing's coming out of the fly, but 34 watts even. So that's, I'll turn that back to the middle. See what happens. Okay, that does try to turn it to the right a bit more. They do a great deal. It says 11 watts, I'd love to stay on there. Yeah, no, it prefers to be sort of sat in the middle of it, I think. And my connection's absolutely rubbish. So if I get a better power connection that might help. Let me just do temperature. That's quite warm, we need a little break. Okay, so remember this is just at 12 volts. There's no real restriction on the current. It's got a limit of 15 amps, that is the restriction, I suppose, but and of course the transformers will only give us 13.2 or so. So this seems to be the best. I've got it near or turned all the way to the right. I suppose I could go completely to the right. And this is still round about halfway, this 5K. So the 10 k-pots turn 0.4 or way to the right. If I just put, I should probably do it better this time. And even though it's not just that little smooth, I mean it is there. I think that's probably the most powerful. Yeah, so I need to disconnect that, actually, can hear. I don't know how it's called, actually. It smells nice, though. Yeah, just a quick look at that circuit. I'm not sure how it's going to be as I now connect it up to a coil and the secondary transformer in the coil over there. But if it was just a case of this one being, what I'm basically trying to say, is it's not very powerful in the right up to this circuit that you can't have a diode or rectifier diode. So I'm going to assume that this doesn't have a rectifier diode because it's exactly the same sort of output as what this is and you can see that this doesn't have a rectifier diode at all. It's just got a few turns there. I suppose what I could do as well is connect this into this one and just have half of this on the go, or this to this, whichever, to have half of this because it saves like five to six turns, I think. Of course, this has got a lot more turns on here at the minute. So let's give that a go as well and see what happens. Well, that's interesting because it's not as good. We've only half, we've only the amount that they said to give because, look, you can see how I've connected between these two. So it's just from the centre tap here to here. And it isn't anywhere as good. Like that. See here, look. That's all we've got. I'm even trying to stretch it out. That was good. Definitely not as good. It's worth checking. It's worth seeing what the difference will be. That's all part of doing the experiments. So I'm going to put that back over here. But I think this might be dragging on now in this video. And there's not a great deal to cut out. It's not as low as we've got quite big times of pause, but this probably could be cut out while I'm jibbering about now. So let's stop. Yeah. And now I've got to try and find some of the capacitors, I suppose. Maybe I can play around the capacitors a bit as well and see if that will make any difference. Add a bit of capacitance by removing one of those capacitors. And we can do that just by just connecting here and connecting here or connecting here and see what happens there. Yeah, great. Well, oddly enough, I don't know if anybody else noticed. But the wire's off. So we haven't got those capacitors connected anyway. Let's just give that a go again. Because look, if I do, if I just put this back here again, I can do this. OK, so that's what we've got without the capacitors. Yeah, not the greatest connections I know. Put this back and do that again. I don't think we've got our connection as it's supposed to be. All right, let me just fiddle with it. Let me just fiddle. I'm a bit lost where do we get to. I reconnected the capacitors, right, wasn't it? And we're still on just half of this. So let's give it some power. So it's on 50 watts. It's not really great. I don't think it's as good. It might be. Let's go back and look at the video again. OK, right, let's just get it back. It makes the air smell so nice. So now I've put it back to the two outer ones. So we've got all of those turns. OK, so it says 35 watts. I don't know what you're looking for. It's just a bit better like this isn't it. Let's discount the power. It says, look, it's using this power. Disconnect it. Yeah, better like that. Let's have a look at the thingy, the capacitance one. Let's get some light. Pretty sure. That's like 100 nano. Let's have a look. Let's get on the meter and see. OK, so connected to the meter. On all the frequencies, 1K, 7.5K and 100 hertz. It's 100 pK. I'm not sure whether that's going to be good enough. I need a bit more on that out of thought. I've got these ones here. These are 100 nanofarads. 3kHz. Not a regular choice. I've got a bunch of these. And these are 100 pKF each. 20 kilovolt. Or I've got a bunch of these. And these are 100 nanofarads each. At 3 kilovolt. Or I've got this. Done, done. That's 100 nanofarad. 20 kV. I've used this before.  Took me five and a half hours to find it. I didn't move in all that time as well. I think actually I did have a break. Yeah, and this sort of worked. Because I did it. I got one and I got probably... Coming off it like this, going to an earth stick. Maybe a bit bigger. It's on one of my first videos but I managed to blow. Dig out the other ones of these. Because some of them are made up like this. Already in series. In Rosa 4. And a whole bunch in parallel as well. So... But it burnt them out after a while because I was just turning up the power more and more. So really I could use these and not turn up the power so much. Get a bit of something going off it. I'm just going to do one of these and just see the difference. I just want to see what the difference is before I start playing around with the other ones. Hardening noise, nothing. Oh, that's tiny. So... Okay, and look at it, it knocks out. Knocks out that as well. Okay, that's... That's noteworthy. I'm going to try one of these and I'm going to try one of these because this one's a lot less. This is a hundred Pika ferrets. This is a hundred nano ferrets single, three kilowatt. Let's just go over here and see what happens. Okay, so there we go. Connected like that. Just how the other one was connected is nothing special. It's jumping.  Which is good. We're making quite a bit of noise there as well. And that's just with that little capacitor. So let's just see what that's like just before we've got the single one. See this? Anything that we're going to say, it's still the same voltage. Same everything. These ones are good. Okay, noise. That's pretty good actually. That looks a bit bad. That's not bad. 28 watts. It's just sat like that. Right, so let's just do the single one and see what that's like. Okay, so we've got the single one. Let's power it up. Making some noises. Now the differences may end up being massive, but there are differences in there. So after quite a lot of playing around and there not being that much difference between using... I mean there is a little bit of differences but it's quite hard to try and work out what's wrong with them. But I'm using this big one at the moment. Sorry, there's lights in the background. This big one. And I'm turning the voltage up to 18 volts as well. You can see that. And now, I'm going to get quite a bit more. And it's using 87 watts. I'm just going to see if I can move that back just a little bit. And now I have sort of tuned this into pretty much...this isn't even of all the way...it is all the way to the right. I just backed that up a little tiny bit. Thanks. What is playing with them? So I take that back to round about the middle. This one. I think this is about in the middle. Yeah. Because if I turn that just let's say a quarter to the left almost like the wires come off. I put it back to the middle. I just turn it to the right slightly. There we go. Pretty much bang in the middle a tiny bit to the left. Well, that's certainly an improvement. If I just see what that would be like...well no, we know what it's like at 12 volts. I've done it time and time. Let's try and get it to work as a Tesla coil now. I haven't got any sort of top load. But that's obviously for another video. So I'm going to call that a night with that. Yeah. That's alright. It's definitely worked. It's definitely worked and I'm just going to get that the actual Tesley sparky part of it sorted out. I'm not quite sure how to do that just yet. Even though I've done it before it doesn't seem to be working the same this time. Anyway, thanks for watching if you've got this far. So as we can do it this thing.


Think about your hometown. Let's say that you have a new restaurant that comes out. You have a couple of friends who are probably gonna go try that restaurant no matter what because they'll do anything to find the best restaurant in town, including trying something that is completely unproven. Now, you probably also have friends or relatives or parents who will not try that restaurant until at least 10 people have told them that it's good, that it's worth the money, that it's worth checking out. Those are what we call the laggards. And so we have a whole spectrum of customers in between these two. And the more we can bridge that gap, the more sales that we're gonna make. And this is where branding really comes into play because you can go out there, you can make sales to the early adopters in a new industry, in a new business today with no brand whatsoever. In order to get the people in the middle that are more skeptical, they're not willing to take any risks and all of the risk has to go onto you as the brand for them to canned over any money whatsoever. In order to get them, they play a different game.


Good morning everyone and welcome to the third meeting of the next zero energy and transport committee 2023, I'm sorry for the slight delay that were problems with transport this morning. Gender item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. We have the consideration of whether to take items 3 and 4 in private. Item 3 is the consideration of the evidence we will hear today on the legislative consent memorandum on the Bill 7 yn y ystyried cymorth ym Mhwn i gynllun oedd yn gweithio i gyda gyda ei pethau ym Mhwn i'r private. So, mae'r pethau yn aml dryf yn 4 o'r prif, ond mae ein gymryd. Ond y byddwyrwyll ym Mhwn i gynllun oedd ei blywau gwir ynghylch ziwyr ym Mhwn i'r £1. Mynd i'r duodau ym Mhwn i'r pethau i gyrdau am arall y byddwyr.  Ydych chi'n gweld i'r Llywodraeth Cymru i'r cyfrifasol i'r cyfrifasol i'r cyfrifasol i'r bwysigio'r cyfrifasol i'r bynnag. I would like to welcome you, cabinet secretary, two weeks running to the committee, so welcome this morning. I would like to welcome Raggy Lowe, who is the deputy director of onshore electricity policy and strategic coordination for the Scottish Government, and Dawn Sungu, who is the strategic coordination team leader for the Scottish Government. We have about 10 minutes for this item, but there is some flexibility there. Cabinet secretary, I think you want to make a brief opening statement, so I'm happy for you to go ahead. Good morning. Yes, convener, if you can bear with me, it's a little longer than normal to go through the key areas that I want to set out to the committee for our position this matter. The energy bill, as you rightly say, was introduced to the House of Lords on 6 July 2022. It was set out at that time by Greg Hans. Scottish ministers at that time were asked to give confirmation of their consent in principle to begin the legislative consent process in the Scottish Parliament through the LCM, which was introduced to the Scottish Parliament on 28 September. Having carefully reviewed the bill, the Scottish Government recommends that Parliament give consent to some but not all of the clauses contained within the bill. A number of the clauses impact in devolved areas, and further clarification or amendments are needed from the UK Government to ensure that the bill respects the long-established powers of Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament to act in relation to matters that fall within devolved competence. I'm recommending that the Scottish Parliament provide consent to certain clauses relating to amendments to the Nuclear Insulations Act 1956, market reform and consumer protection, the regulation of heat networks and the civil nuclear sector. We have provided details on each of those clauses in the LCM. I'm recommending that the Scottish Parliament withhold consent to a number of clauses. Those are set out within the LCM, and the Scottish Government is in discussions with the UK Government about further amendments or clarification. Those clauses are part 1, the licensing of carbon dioxide transport and storage, where an amendment is being requested, required off-gym, and the Secretary of State to consider Scottish statutory emissions targets in the exercise of functions related to part 1. Part 2, carbon dioxide capture, storage etc., and hydrogen production, where an amendment is being requested to require the Secretary of State to obtain consent from Scottish ministers if regulations contain provisions that would be within devolved competence. Part 3, low-carbon heat systems, clauses 98-107, where the Scottish Government has requested changes to include provision for Scottish ministers to give consent to secondary regulations where devolved competence is touched upon. Some clauses within part 7 of the heat networks are chapter 1, as the clauses propose that the Secretary of State needs only to consult Scottish ministers on devolved matters rather than to seek their consent. Schedule 15, part 5, paragraph 33, where an amendment has been requested to remove any reference to Scotland as irrelevant powers do not apply here. Part 11, oil and gas environmental protection clauses at 225, due to the fact that in the territorial seas adjacent to Scotland, there is a mixed picture on legislative competence depending on the activity in question. Clause 226, sub-clause 234 and clause 227, as they appear to modify and alter devolved competence and would appear to erode extant powers held by the Scottish Parliament and ministers. Part 13, general clause 238, as it would affect the devolved and exclusively devolved functions of the Scottish Parliament and ministers. The detailed reasons for the recommendations being recommended with holding consent, the clauses are set out in the LCM and at the request of the committee I also provided further information in my letter of 16 January 2023. UK Government introduced amendments to the House of Lords on Monday 9 January, relating to processes for habitats regulations assessments for offshore wind projects. Those clauses are part of the UK Government's offshore wind environmental improvement package and have been the subject of significant engagement between the UK and Scottish ministers and officials. We have real and significant concerns that those clauses, as currently drafted, could pose a risk to realising Scotland's offshore wind ambitions and will continue to engage closely with the UK Government to ensure that those concerns are addressed. It is the Scottish Government's intention to submit a supplementary LCM relating to both the offshore wind environmental improvement package and, if necessary, for any clauses where relevant amendments have been made to the energy bill during its parliamentary passage. In addition, I would also like to thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their further scrutiny of clauses 1.7.2. As a result, the Scottish Government now recommends withholding consent to clause 1.7.2. As I advised the committee by letter, that recommendation will be included in a future supplementary LCM. Of course, I am happy to respond to any questions that the committee may have. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Before we go into questions from members, I would like to have a quick question on the on-going discussions that you have said that, I believe that the Scottish Government is expecting some response by the end of the month. Are you expecting that there will be a satisfactory outcome and there may be a subsequent LCM or what are your views on that? Just a general indication of how it is going, I guess, cabinet secretary? We had an indication that we would get a response to our initial concerns that I highlighted in August last year. I am still waiting for a response from a letter from August last year on this matter. Since then, officials have continued to be engaged with officials within the UK Government. We had an indication last week that we would receive a response ahead of the committee appearance that has not materialised. We have now been advised that we are likely to get a response next week from the UK Government on the clauses that we have highlighted back in August. We continue to have engagement with them, but we are still waiting for formal feedback directly from them on the issues of concern that we raised back in August. Thank you. There are still on-going discussions. The first question comes from Mark Ruskell. Mark Ruskell. Thank you, convener. Good morning to you. Can I start with a broader question? Then perhaps we can get into the specifics around certain amendments that you are looking to change. Does the energy strategy just transition plan align with the energy bill? Will the energy bill help to deliver the Government's plan or other particular areas of divergence? Potentially. The areas that I mentioned are still on discussions with regard to the offshore wind improvement arrangements. If we are not able to get the amendments that we require to be made to the legislation, it could have a negative impact on the roll-out of some offshore wind installations for a variety of reasons, so it could create confusion around the regulatory process and it could also create some duplication in the system. There is a risk that it could actually have an adverse impact on offshore wind developments and the consenting process associated with that. However, if we can get the necessary amendments that we have been highlighting for some months now, then it has the potential to help to improve the process and to potentially speed up the process. The approach that I have been trying to take with the UK Government on this matter is that I think that we have a shared endeavour in looking to take forward our offshore wind development programme in an efficient, effective way in order to meet our climate change targets. The amendments that we have proposed could help to do that and achieve that more quickly, and that is why we have been pursuing this issue with the UK Government. At this stage, it has the potential to improve it, but if it does not, if we do not get the amendments that we are looking for, it could have a negative impact on offshore wind projects in Scotland. I know that colleagues are going to come back on that specific point later on, but I will turn to an amendment that you have requested around the need for off-gem and secretary of state to consider Scottish emissions targets. What is the underlying concern here? Which particular clause are you referring to? Do you recommend with holding consent from part 1 until it is amended so that both off-gem and secretary of state can consider Scottish emissions reductions targets? The purpose behind that is that, in creating a regular authority through off-gem, it is important that the regulatory process that it puts in place in supporting the roll-out of heat networks is reflective of the fact that we have different statutory targets from the UK in meeting our net zero targets by 2013-2045. It was to ensure that, as the regulatory authority, that off-gem has an obligation to ensure that it aligns its regulations to reflect the statutory targets that we have here in Scotland. That is the primary reason behind that. The danger is that, as a regulator, it aligns purely to the UK approach, which would again put us at a difficulty in meeting our statutory targets for 2013-2045. Any other areas in relation to part 1 that relate to that requirement to have cognisance of Scottish targets? You mentioned CCS in your opening. The other part in relation to part 1 that is a licence of carbon dioxide transport and storage. The issue is that the regulatory powers that have been taken by the secretary of state provisions in this section are very broad and could impact on areas that are of devolved competence when they have been exercised. It is difficult to tell that at the present moment because of the broad nature of the powers that have been taken in this area. That is why we are looking for an amendment that would require Scottish ministers to give consent to any areas that would have an impact on devolved competence if there was a desire to make amendments in those areas. That is why we have flagged up a very broad power and it has the potential to impact on devolved powers. The simple amendment that we are looking for is to recognise that, if there is going to impact on devolved powers, there should be a request for consent of Scottish ministers. First of all, throughout the bill, particularly in part 7, involving the heat networks, the Scottish Government is looking to change the provisions from to consult Scottish ministers to must obtain the consent of Scottish ministers. Can you help the committee to understand what are the practical implications of sticking with consultation over seeking consent? Are you aware? Is there a standard approach to this? Is it usual to consult or is it usual to seek consent or is there no standard? That is in relation to areas that are within devolved competence. Again, those are very broad powers that have been taken. The provision that is also made for in part 7 relates to the national licensing authority that will be off the gem and the powers that they will be provided with. The reason that we are seeking for the request for consent from Scottish ministers is because it is in devolved areas. Because it is a broad area of bird powers that have been taken and the responsibilities and the measures that have also been given to the national networks licensing authority, there is a requirement to make sure that, if they are in devolved areas, there is a consent of Scottish ministers on that matter. That would be the normal process that I would expect to happen and I see no harm in being able to put that in the face of the bill. Thank you for that. I understand the point that has been made. If, however, we start from saying that there is a significant degree of seriousness around what is being proposed, in fact, rather than limiting it to Scottish ministers, might there be an argument for saying that the Scottish Parliament should have a role in considering any such proposals? Normally, in any regulations, it depends if it is a negative or affirmative process, it is that we have to come before the Scottish Parliament and by having the way in which the legislation operates, it is that you have to have the consent of Scottish ministers. Scottish ministers then are accountable to the Scottish Parliament. In the same way that the Secretary of State has the powers but he is accountable to the UK Parliament does not require the consent necessarily of the Parliament to exercise those powers but they are accountable to the Parliament. It is the exact same process at Westminster that would be here in Scotland. The issue here is not so much about a stand-off on a devolved area and you cannot touch it. There are a couple of areas within the bill that go into devolved areas that we are content with what has been proposed in the bill for devolved areas. In that sense, what we are doing is making sure that if there is an exercising of powers in this area through those regulations, which then impinge upon devolved areas, there is a requirement for consent from Scottish ministers. That is not unusual, but my view is pretty standard. As I said, it is not just a case of because it is devolved, we want you to consult or to take our consent in areas that we agree within the bill that touch on devolved areas, we have recommended consenting to that. That is taking powers that can be used at a later date at this stage, we do not know what the impact will actually be or whether they will align with what we want to do here in Scotland. We should require our consent before they are implemented. That argument, having been made going right back to the convener's first question, you have been talking to the UK Government about this for six months now. Do you get any sense that the argument is being heard and that there is a sympathy towards that argument? Or do you have any sense of how that is going to go at this stage? If we break that into two parts, there are the easier issues and there are more complex issues. The more complex issues relate to the habitat regulations aspect that we touched upon earlier on, where there were amendments introduced to the House of Commons on the 9th of January. There are lots to the 9th of January, which we have significant concerns about and the potential impact they could have on offshore wind developments. That is a much more complex discussion and a much more challenging discussion that we are having. Many of the issues that I have set out in the initial LCM in my view are broadly quite straightforward issues. It is about moving from consulting to consent and it is about making sure that our statutory targets are taken into account when off-jame is a regulator and taking forward any regulatory functions that it has. It is largely, in my view, pretty straightforward. The much more complex areas around the habitat regulations issues and that is still quite a detailed discussion. If you are asking me to characterize the process as being quite straightforward, to be frank, I know that it has not been. It has been really quite challenging. It has been quite challenging even in what I think are the straightforward areas. There are reasons for that and you will be aware of the reasons during the autumn because of the changes that we had at ministerial level. The fact that we still have an outstanding letter from August has not been responded to. I think that there is a reflection of the issues at the UK Government site, but I hope that now that we have ministers in place, we should be able to get those issues progressed. However, I still think that there is a long way to go on the habitat regulations issues that need to be addressed. Scottish Government has recommended that consent be withheld from schedule 15 as well as that does not extend to Scotland. There is a definition of road contained in part 5, paragraph 33, which would apply to Scotland. What your views are on the practical concerns about the schedule as it is currently drafted? The issue in this area is that we already have provision in our part of legislation to deal with issues around roadworks, etc, of this nature. We also have a statutory process for carrying out that process. The provision that has been created in this particular part of the energy bill is not required here in Scotland. It runs the danger of creating uncertainty for applicants as to how they would obtain certain provisions because they would be competing bits of legislation. In our view, that would go against the better regulation agenda, which we are all meant to be operating to as well, which is why I have requested that Scotland be removed from that particular provision. It is just going to cause confusion? It is just going to cause confusion for competing bits of legislation. We have already got legislative provision. It is worth keeping in mind that our heat networks bill came along after the UK legislation. One of the things that we were able to do during the course of developing that legislation was to learn from some of the challenges that they have had in England with that legislation. I did not take that legislation fall, but that was one of the key issues that we considered at the time. That is why there are provisions that are within our own legislation that we do not require because we have already made provisions for them. I may be wrong, but I suspect that they are trying to correct some of the issues that they have had with their own heat networks legislation. I wanted to ask about the offshore wind environmental improvement package that has been mentioned a couple of times already. Is the Scottish Government content with the actions being planned by the UK Government to reduce the consent periods for offshore wind projects that are being adopted as part of the offshore wind environmental improvement package? We continue to have major concerns about the amendments that have been laid so far. Those amendments were only laid on 9 January. We are still going through their potential implications. There are some areas that could have a positive impact, but as they are in a limited way, however, as it stands at the present moment, there is still the significant risk that they could have a negative impact in slowing down the process. With differing competing consenting processes, there is a Scottish Government level and a UK Government level. For example, the clause makes provision for the Secretary of State to the discretion to operate a marine recovery fund that would operate in waters out to 200 nautical miles. However, it is unclear how that would operate. For example, if it operates on a UK-wide basis, it means that projects that were being taken forward within waters out with Scotland could potentially use a Scottish marine recovery fund in Scottish waters to offset mitigations in waters out with Scotland, which could end up creating a whole range of competing demands and challenges that would become extremely complex and will probably cause a considerable level of anxiety, which will cause a significant level of anxiety in the industry. There is quite a significant range of concerns that we have around. For example, the clauses do not maintain the current responsibility that the Scottish ministers have for habitat regulations assessments of offshore wind projects in the Scottish offshore wind region, which is between 12 nautical miles and 200 nautical miles. Right now, that is the responsibility of the Scottish ministers. Within the legislation, that appears no longer to be the case. Therefore, it is unclear exactly how that will be taken forward because it would appear to be that it may be seeking to dilute the current licensing and consenting responsibilities that we have within Scottish waters. The small positive aspect of it is that it has recognised that within Scottish inshore waters, which is between the coastline and 12 nautical miles, there is a responsibility of the Scottish ministers. It is the responsibility of the Scottish ministers between 12 miles and 200 nautical miles. How they have arrived at the idea of the distinction is beyond us. There is also a provision within it that says that the Scottish mill's powers to adopt any new regulations for HRA in the Scottish inshore region as well would be subject to qualifying secretary of state functions. We have absolutely no idea what that qualifying secretary of state function is. What does that mean? What are the implications of that? Is that a view that you should be able to override decisions that Scottish ministers make in areas that are devolved competence? Consider one certainty and some confusion around that. It does run the risk of causing delay and complications in the consenting system in a way that it is trying to speed up and improve the system. We all want to seek clarity. I was reading a note of a meeting that took place on 5 December. It was the inter-ministerial group for environment, food and rural affairs, and Cabinet Secretary Mary Gougeon and Lorna Slater in her ministerial role were representing the Scottish Government. The notice on the UK Government website is written from that perspective. It sounds quite positive in the sense that it is constructive. It said that devolved ministers set out the importance of delivering the provision in a way that supports our shared offshore wind ambition while respecting devolution. The DEFRA minister agreed that there is a need to work with devolved Governments to achieve mutual objections. Some of the concerns that you have raised, Cabinet Secretary, are you aware if they were discussed in that meeting on 5 December? I was, yes. They have been discussed at many meetings. What we have not had is progress in addressing the issues. Are those meetings just nice chats or are you getting into the detail on those meetings? The UK Government has absolutely no doubt about the detail. What we have done in relation to issues around the habitat regulations and offshore consent arrangements is that there are broadly two routes that can be taken here. One route is that some of the legislation under which consenting is taken forward is reserved, but it is exactly devolved to Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament to consider. The primary power of that is given to the Scottish Parliament to legislate in those areas. If the UK Government is not minded to do that, what it can do is to get regulatory making powers that allow the Scottish Minister and the Scottish Parliament to consider regulations in those areas that would allow us to effect a change to reflect the type of adaption that we want to make in our offshore wind consenting arrangements and in our habitat regulation assessments as well. We have set that out in detail to them as well. What we have not had is the progress in addressing those issues. People in Scotland will be wondering what that could mean for Scotland and a potential Scotland to. Is the Government's view on that and has there been discussion with stakeholders in Scotland around the Scotland agenda? It could create confusion. I also think that it will create some instability in the system as well, because there will still be areas that are devolved that the improvement package does not touch upon, which will create competing demand. There will be areas that are currently consented on by the Scottish Government and are managed by the Scottish Government through agencies such as Marine Scotland. The UK Government could say that we are taking control of those matters instead. It is a delusion of the powers that the Scottish Parliament ministers have in these areas of consenting. It could result in, as I say, a competing challenge between the UK Government's approach to aspects of consenting and how that then impacts on other areas of devolved policy, which might be around some marine environmental issues as well. From the discussions that we have had with the sector, there is anxiety that that is going to create confusion and competing interests that we are trying to avoid. There is a clear way in which to address that. That is to continue with the powers that we have at the present moment and to have the scope to be able to make the regulatory changes to adapt them to reflect the changing demand that we are facing. On the other part, and you mentioned Scotland, compared to what is happening in other parts of the UK, the scale of Scotland in terms of offshore wind development compared to the UK's completely different levels. Scotland is over nearly 28 gigawatts. It is way beyond anything that has been proposed in any other part of the UK. The need for us to have a consenting regime that is fit for purpose, that is reflective of the different needs that we have and the different competing interests that we have to manage from the fisher communities to our island communities, is really important. The danger is that we end up with a consenting system that does not reflect that. We find ourselves with left powers on behalf of the present moment in consenting on those issues. I will wrap up by referring to Scottish renewables. We have heard from them that they take the position that they support the Scottish Government's LCM recommending that consent is withheld for the first related sections of the bill on the basis that they support growing Scotland's renewable energy sector and sustaining its position at the forefront of the global clean energy industry. Given what you have said, and what the Scottish renewables are saying, is that the Scottish Government's position that the bill does not achieve that? No, it does not. In the present form, it does not. There is a need for us to be able to adapt to our consenting regime to deal with the scale of Scotland, and there are some other offshore wind developments as well, because of the various competing needs that we now have to address within our marine environment, which is why we have to change it and we have to adapt it. However, some of the aspects that we need to change in order to do that are the regulations that are based on legislation that is reserved to the UK Government, and that we use executive powers to exercise them. To change them fundamentally in a way that will help to improve that process, we need to have the regulation-making powers to actually do that, if not the powers over primary legislation. That is why I have set out that there are two routes that we can go down here. You can either devolve the power or you can give us a regulation-making powers, which this Parliament will then be responsible for scrutinising and how we manage that process. To date, we have not been able to actually make the progress on the issues that we would hope we would be able to. I can assure you that there is significant engagement not just in the industry but across different ministerial portfolios to try and find a way in which that can be properly addressed. It goes back to your opening point about the minute that you mentioned that there is a shared agenda here. The danger here is that the legislations that draft at the present moment could have the opposite effect in Scotland from what was originally intended to be its purpose, and that is why we have set out how we can make sure that we deliver on the shared agenda and also a fit for purpose consenting process for managing projects like Scotland and some of the big offshore renewable projects that are coming along in the next couple of years. That is helpful. Thank you, cabinet secretary. There are some other questions on that. I will come in to the deputy convener, Fiona. You confirm that the issue for both Governments is how we effectively reduce the consenting period, but you also want to improve the process, but we also need to have certainty for the industry to make sure that the developments take place as planned. Is that the area that you think that, if you had to come back to the committee in a supplementary LCM, that is likely to be the area of concern? Absolutely. It is key to it. One of the things that we need to be able to achieve here is that, with the scale of some of those developments, some of the mitigation measures that have to be implemented through the consenting process very often mitigations are very much based upon whether that development is taking place or close by. It may not be possible to achieve that just given the scale of some of those developments that may have to take place in another part of a marine environment or in our coastline, which is why we have set out a range of ways in which we can achieve that, which allows us to take forward developments in a timely, efficient, effective way. If we are not able to do that, the reality is that some of the larger developments will be significantly constrained and we will end up having to try and mitigate it in a way that will not be pragmatic. There is a pathway through that. What we have not been able to do is to get agreement with the UK Government on making sure that that pathway is very clear. The danger now is that, as we are picking up from industry, we are concerned about confusion and delay in the consenting process and not being able to manage it in a way that reflects some of the specific challenges that we have with the scale of projects in Scotland. We need to be in a position where we can adapt to that, because that is not reflected in what is happening in the other parts of the UK, because the scale of what we are doing is of a different magnitude. Now, if you can help the committee to understand any potential relationship between the UK Government's levelling up and regeneration bill and what might come through in relation to the energy bill in relation to mitigation and environmental aspects. Clearly, we perfectly understand onshore, we want to see biodiversity mitigation, we want to see peatland restoration with onshore developments. For offshore, clearly there will be a biodiversity impact of such major developments and we want to make sure that there are mitigations. Clearly environmental law and environmental mitigations are devolved competencies of this Parliament, but one of our concerns when we did our report into the UK levelling up and regeneration bill that was published at the end of December was that the new system would mean that where there was cross-border areas and seas quite clearly that that can take place, the Secretary of State for the Environment of the UK Government would not have to consult with the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government, in terms of that mitigation. The mitigation, therefore, for environmental issues, would be under the auspices of the Secretary of State for the Environment and could have a major impact. For example, if part of our mitigations we might want to develop seaweed farms or we might want to do something particularly with our bird population, there would be no responsibility, accountability and indeed planning and funding control from the Scottish Government that could actually transfer to the Secretary of State for the Environment now. If I've got this wrong, please let us know, but I was concerned about the interaction between these two bills. No, you're correct, because there is quite a significant interaction, particularly around a habitat regulation assessment aspect of it as well. A practical example could be, say for example, a marine recovery fund if it operates at a UK level is that you could have an offshore wind farm being developed in, say, the Celtic Seas, which is a project that's been taken off in Wales, but the actual mitigations could be applied in a fishery in Scotland. So, because of the negative impact that they would have on, say, for example, a certain type of bird life, naturally, say, we'll actually be closing a certain fishery in Scottish waters, that could actually be classed as a mitigation to help to support that. The challenge that you've got with that is that projects in Scotland, they actually may need mitigations that involve closure of certain fisheries to help to support it. We wouldn't have access to that, but the other part to it is that the closure of that fishery would have a significant potential. I'm just using this as an example, because of a significant economic impact on a community, which the Scottish Government would be largely responsible for addressing, but we weren't responsible for making the decision on closing a particular fishery. So, as a mitigation for an offshore wind farm, taking place somewhere else in UK waters? I'll just clarify. It could work the other way round, though, couldn't it? So, something could be developed up here, which may have an environmental impact, which is then translated into another part of the United Kingdom. So, it can work both ways, surely? Potentially, but the difference is that, in Scotland, the scale of what's been taken forward is of a different magnitude from what's happening in the rest of the UK waters, and it's worth keeping in mind what 62 per cent of all the UK's waters are actually in Scottish waters. So, it might be more important to have the ability to offset that across the whole of the United Kingdom, rather than just in Scotland waters? No, quite the opposite, because the reason being is that the vast majority of the mitigations are probably going to fall within Scottish waters, or within the Scottish coastline, because of the scale of what we're looking to do with offshore wind. So, if you look at the scale of what's projected in waters around England, it's of a much smaller scale than what's proposed in Scottish waters, and the danger is that smaller projects in other parts of the UK start taking up mitigation measures for large-scale projects in Scottish waters, and it then constrains them and limits them. However, even if I had the power—so, one of the things that we're saying is that any marine mitigation fund in Scotland should not matter, which is the responsibility of Scottish ministers to the Scottish Parliament—is that, if I was to be given the powers to take mitigations in other parts of the UK, I'd get no doubt very quick with people saying, actually, that's not the right thing to do, because I'm not responsible for the wider impact that that actually has on fishing communities, et cetera. That's a matter that would have to be decided upon by UK ministers. But you could consult with them to see if it would work. Well, to be honest with you, I wouldn't want to consult with them. If I'm placing a responsibility on them, I think it's my responsibility to get their consent and their agreement to it. The problem with this is that that's not what's proposed. It proposes that it'll actually be quite a centralised system based in Whitehall that will decide these things, which doesn't necessarily reflect the scale of what we're looking to take forward here in Scotland, and the impact that some of those mitigations might have on communities or certain industries, the responsibility of the impact that that would have would then fall to Scottish ministers. If I can continue my questioning in this area, what you're suggesting is that there should be consent both ways in terms of the environmental impact and mitigations as a result of the energy bill, but clearly implications for Scotland are far bigger because of the scale of the operations in Scotland too, potentially. Is that what you'll be seeking in terms of changes to the energy bill and does that require any interaction with the other bill that I was referring to that the UK Government is pursuing as well, that consent would work both ways? Currently, that's the only consultation with the Scottish ministers? I don't know, do you want to say a bit more about the interaction with the other piece of legislation because it's part of this wider engagement that we're having with the UK Government around this as well? In terms of how any marine mitigation fund or recovery fund would operate, we're moving into new territory here. There are a lot of competing demands that we have to try to address. A combination of trying to achieve the outcome that we're trying to get in terms of offshore renewable potential, the impact that that has on our marine environment and those who are dependent upon our marine environment are fisher communities, seabird life etc, which Scotland has a major role in helping to support at a European level as well. The idea with the meaning recovery fund is to try to help to take a balanced approach where we can try to mitigate against some of the impacts that large-scale offshore wind developments will have on our marine environment. The view is that for that system to operate effectively in Scotland, our view is that that's a matter that should be, as it would be at the moment, for any mitigations on consenting for offshore wind. It's a matter for Scottish ministers to make decisions upon as well. If there was a view that it was to operate at a UK-based level—a UK-wide level—there would be a need to have a process in place where Scottish ministers were asked for consent to agree to changes that may come about in a marine recovery fund being applied in Scotland to offset the impact of a development taking place outwith Scotland. What that would have to be weighed against, and what impact does that have on projects that are taking place in offshore Scottish borders? How do you manage all of those competing demands? If it is applied, what impact does that have on a community or an industry or bud life in Scotland? What impact will it have? How do we balance that out against all the other projects that will probably end up having to have mitigation measures put in place? That's a challenge, and we're able to try to achieve that. It would have to be a process that would require Scottish ministers' consent, but it would also need to be a balanced system so that we can properly assess the process. At this stage, there's a lack of detail or understanding exactly how that would operate, and that's one of the major issues. I don't have a regular, but I'll say a little bit about the interaction. We've got quite a few more questions that I'd like to bring in Mark, because he's got a supplementary on that, which may prompt the answer to the next one. Mark. Yeah, it might even feed into what Raggy would probably want to talk about anyway, but it's just to probe a little bit further about the changing nature of environmental assessments. So, on the levelling up bill, a proposal to move to environmental objectives rather than the European standard and processes of environmental assessment and habitats regulations. I'm just wondering if that forms part of the concern here. Is there a, with a shift in environmental assessment, could the answer to mitigation end up being different according to whether Secretary of State defines particular environmental objectives? The fundamental difference is that the UK Government viewed that. The habitat regulation aspect of it, for energy purposes, is being reserved. That's a change, because it's for energy production purposes, which is a reserved matter. Our view is that, no, that's not the habitat regulation aspects that are devolved are therefore to deal with environmental aspects, whether it's for energy production or anything else. These are devolved matters that we've competence over. So, that's part of the discussion that we've been having with the UK Government to try and get recognition. It's not about what the purpose of which some of these habitat regulations are for. It's the fundamental purpose of them that's important, and that is about managing our marine environment and effective marine stewardship as well. I don't know if you want to say a bit more raggy about the process that we've got around the levelling up. In terms of the relationship between the two bills, as you say, some of the principal issues are the same, and the issues that we have around touching on devolved competence are similar. It's the energy bill that the UK Government is using as the vehicle through which to implement or to introduce changes to the habitat regulation assessment process for offshore wind projects, and that's where our focus is in terms of this work on the energy bill. We can perhaps come back to you, if there's anything, if there are particular details around the relationship between the two bills that you'd like to explore further. Mark, you've got the next question as well, I think. No, I think I've done. You're finished. I'll come back to you Fianna then. I'm looking forward. How do you establish bills and legislation that can be future proof for changes that will happen in the future? You've already indicated the issues potentially around heat networks. Does the UK energy bill, as it stands, provide a wider risk to devolved powers, or is it likely to limit future actions of Scottish ministers of the Scottish Parliament in the future, particularly in the energy area? Effective our position is to maintain what we have at the present moment in terms of powers, and to look at trying to create mechanisms that can help us to address some of the challenges that we know we're going to face when it comes to things like large-scale offshore wind developments. We're looking to protect and maintain the existing devolved powers and competence that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish ministers have on the consenting regime, but also recognise that, going forward, there are going to need to be changes in order to accommodate and manage some of the challenges around large-scale offshore wind developments, which is why we have been flagging up to the UK Government. You can hear devolve the primary legislation in which some of that has dealt with. If not, then create the regulation-making functions that allow Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament to adapt and change to some of the challenges that we're going to face in the years ahead. My view in terms of your challenge around future proofing is that having a regulatory process in there allows us to give that flexibility to adapt and change to some of the challenges that we go forward. The danger is that, if we don't have that, we find ourselves in a situation in which it creates confusion and difficulty and some instability in the process, and it creates a longer and more challenging process than would be necessary. What we think could be changed in the system to make it a much more efficient system. Do you see the immediate issues around offshore? Is there anything potentially an on-shorter in terms of environmental aspects in relation to the wider aspects of the bill, whether it's hydrogen, carbon capture, et cetera? Anything that you think is looking at environmental impacts on-shorter of any developments that might take place and the mitigations for that? For example, the ACOM project, Grangewires, et cetera? Yeah, so some of the powers that are created within here, for example, around hydrogen and carbon storage, as I was mentioning to Liam Kerr's question, is that some of them are very broad powers that are being taken by UK ministers, which in our view are likely to impinge on devolved areas at some point with the regulation-making functions that they are creating for themselves. Therefore, that's why we're saying that if it is going to impact on devolved areas, then we need to make sure that there's a consenting process for agreeing to that. So we're trying to again make sure that there's a move from consult to consent, because these are areas that we already have powers in that we would expect to require the consent of Scottish ministers in the Scottish Parliament, and that should be reflected in the broad powers that are being created in some of these areas. On the on-shore side, there's not so much in terms of on-shore within this legislation as well. There are some issues around consenting in on-shore, most of that is done through planning legislation in Scotland, as you're aware. There are some aspects around this that could be improved, which are within the Electricity Act around consenting, which we're engaging with the UK Government on, for that's mainly to do with large interconnectors. I'd be hopeful that we'll be able to get some sort of resolution to these matters, but I don't think that's to address within this piece of legislation. It's not within this bill itself. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Liam, I think that you've got a quick question. Yes, convener, it follows on from the deputy convener's question and actually taking you back, cabinet secretary, to what I asked at the start. We were talking about looking to change from merely to consult to consent and I think what I was hearing was that that would be the more usual and perhaps more appropriate way to go. And if that's right, do you have any view on how, given the number of times this comes up in this particular process, how we could identify, or how you could identify, at an earlier stage of the drafting issues such as this, in order that we don't get to this stage, let's say six months on from when it was initially raised, such that by this stage we're arguing on the more substantive matters that you've detailed? I think that's a good point. The most effective way to address that would be an earlier sharing of the draft of the bill in itself. We only received a draft copy of the bill the day before it was published. It was only the day, less than 24 hours before it was introduced to Parliament, we were given a copy of it. What we have flagged up to the UK Government consistently is an earlier sharing of the draft allows us to feed into that process at an earlier stage. That, in my view, would be the most effective way to try to help to avoid getting into these types of situations. The only thing that I would say, in addition to that, is that we're wearing discussions with the UK Government prior to the publication of the bill as well, but at that stage there were discussions that were based on no details of what exactly was going to be in the bill itself. Sharing an earlier draft of it with us would be the most effective way to deal with that, Mr Kerr. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I'm just looking around at the committee to see if anyone else has any other questions. For me, that last point was quite interesting, cabinet secretary, just the fact that you've got the bill the day before. It would help me just to understand that and may help the committee if you could share with us the letter of the 9th of August that you sent to the UK Government. I don't see it online somewhere. Maybe I've missed it, but maybe you could just send it to us afterwards so we've got an idea of the substantive questions that you raised at that stage and haven't been answered. Cabinet secretary, I'd like to thank you for your time and your officials' time this morning coming to the committee. That really concludes our part of the public meeting, so we're going to go into private session.


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we are going to discuss the following question and the question says that find the two present words and the two describe 75 dollars during 11 months time allowing interest that 7.5% per annum. Let us proceed with the solution. Let the present word P be equal to 100 dollars. The value of I is given as 7.5% per annum which is equal to 15 by 200. And the value of N that is the number of years is given as 11 months which is equal to 11 by 12 years. Therefore, interest on 100 dollars for 11 months at 7.5% per annum is equal to P into N into I that is 100 into 11 by 12 into 15 by 200 dollars which is equal to 55 by 8 dollars. Therefore, in 11 months time 100 dollars amounts to 100 plus 55 by 8 dollars. As we know the value of amount is equal to principal plus interest. Therefore, it is equal to 855 by 8 dollars. Now, the present word of 855 by 8 dollars is 100 dollars. Therefore, the present word of 75 dollars will be equal to 100 into 8 into 75 upon 855 dollars which is equal to 8 into 5 that is 4000 by 57 dollars that is equal to 70.18 dollars. The present word is given by 70.18 dollars. This completes our present hope you enjoyed this lesson.