So the ones in in-app are the ones which actually have developed an app or have used another app and have actually managed to contextually and programmatically advertise at the right time at the relevant time to their audience and that is the differentiator and those are the guys who actually won.


Hi and welcome to the session. I am Deepika here. Let's discuss a question. Question says, the cost of 4 kg onion, 3 kg wheat and 2 kg rice is Rs. 60. The cost of 2 kg onion, 4 kg wheat and 6 kg rice is Rs. 90. The cost of 6 kg onion, 2 kg wheat and 3 kg rice is Rs. 70. Find cost of each item per kg biometrics method. Let's start the solution. Let cost of 1 kg onion is equal to Rs. x. Cost of 1 kg wheat is equal to Rs. y. And let cost of 1 kg rice is equal to Rs. z. According to the question, cost of 4 kg onion plus 3 kg wheat plus 2 kg rice is equal to Rs. 60. So, we have according to the question, C y 2 z is equal to Rs. 60. Again, plus 4 y plus 6 z is equal to Rs. 90. 6 x C z is equal to Rs. 70. Now, we will solve this equation by the matrix method. The above system of equations written in the form A x is equal to B will be equal to x, y z. B will be equal to Rs. 90, 70. Now, determinant of A is equal to 4 x 12 minus 12 minus 3 x minus 36 plus 2 x 4 minus 24. This is equal to 4 x 0 minus 3 x minus 30 plus 2 x minus 20. So, we will get here 0 plus 90 minus 40 which is equal to 50. Now, we will find co-factor of each and every element of A. Now, co-factor of 4 is equal to minus 1 raised to power 1 plus 1 into 12 minus 12 which is equal to 0. Again, co-factor of 3 is equal to minus 1 raised to power 1 plus 2 into 6 minus 36 which is equal to 30. In this way, we will find the co-factor of each and every element which is as follows. Now, the matrix formed by the co-factors is equal to 0, 30 minus 20 minus 5, 0, 10, 10 minus 20, 10. Now, adjoint A is equal to transpose of this matrix formed by the co-factors which is equal to 0, 30 minus 20 minus 5, 0, 10, 10 minus 20, 10. Therefore, A inverse is equal to 1 upon determinant A into adjoint of A. This is equal to 1 over 50 into 0, 30 minus 20 minus 5, 0, 10, 10 minus 20, 10. Now, A is equal to B implies A inverse B. Therefore, our x is equal to A inverse is our 1 over 50, 0, 30 minus 20 minus 5, 0, 10, 10 minus 20, 10 into B which is equal to 60, 90, 70. So, our x is equal to 1 by 50 into 0 into 60, 0 minus 5 into 90 minus 450, 10 into 70 is plus 713 into 60. This is 1800 plus 0 minus 1400. Again, we get minus 1200 plus 900 plus 700. This is equal to 1 by 50 into 250, 400 and from here we get 400. So, this is equal to 588. This implies x, y, z is equal to 588 and on equating the corresponding elements we get x is equal to 5, y is equal to 8 and z is equal to 8. Now, in the question our x was cost of 1 kg of onion and y was cost of wheat per kg and z was cost of rice per kg. Therefore, the answer for the above system of equations is cost of per kg is equal to rupees 5 as our x is 5 and cost of wheat per kg is equal to rupees 8 as our y is equal to 8 and cost of rice per kg is equal to rupees 8 as our z is also 8. So, this is the answer for the above question. I hope the question is clear to you. Bye and have a good day.


How useful is common sense in science? Short answer? Not very. Our common sense, our intuition, is the sum total of our life experiences with the behaviors of the world around us. But it's limited to the familiar, the scale that we humans live in. Richard Dawkins in a recent TED Talks on our existence in what he calls the middle world quotes JBS Haldane who said the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose. In a way that's a statement of our limited imaginations. We aren't equipped with the mental tools to deal with the very very large and the very very small. Who can conceive directly of the size of the sun that immediately conceive of the size of the sun in relation to our galaxy? You can't. It's just not a quantity we can wrap our brains around. Likewise we can't imagine the size of an atom, or the distance between stars, or the age of the universe. We may stare into infinity, but we are unprepared to comprehend it. Here's a quick experiment. Close your eyes, no peeking. I want you to try visualizing seven of something directly, without grouping the objects into subgroups. Imagine seven apples on a table. Got it? Chances are if you think you've done it, you're really just creating subgroups without realizing it. Most people are unable to directly conceive of any quantity larger than six. You can open your eyes now. Let's take a quick look at why we shouldn't value common sense or intuition in matters of science or math. Let's start with some examples of statistics, something humans are really bad at.  Behind one door is a car, behind the other is goats. The car and the goats were placed randomly behind the doors before the show. The rules of the game show are as follows. After you have chosen a door, the door remains closed for the time being. The game show host, Monty Hall, who knows what is behind the doors now has to open one of two remaining doors. And the door he opens must have a goat behind it. If both remaining doors have goats behind them, he chooses one randomly. After Monty Hall opens a door with a goat, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice, or to switch to the last remaining door. Imagine that you chose door one, and the host opens door three, which has a goat. He then asks you, do you want to switch to door number two? Is it to your advantage to change your choice? The first time I read the problem, I was convinced that sticking with door one gave me the same chance of winning the car as switching. I'm not alone when the problem was first presented in Parade Magazine. It solicited angry letters from some really smart people. Why? Because the truth is that switching to door number two improves your odds substantially. Many of you are saying, no, no, no, he has it wrong. Common Sense tells me that the car is behind one of the doors, and the goat is behind the other. So the odds are 50-50. Nevertheless, the actual answer is that the odds are about 66-33 in favor of switching. I won't go into the proof. Check Wikipedia for the mathematical analysis and some graphical demonstration. Your common sense won't be of much help here. Here's another example. What are the odds of two people sharing the same birthday in a room containing 23 people? Most people would say it must be, I don't know, 1 in 30. Surprisingly, to most people, it is only about 1 in 2. Again, your common sense isn't much help. Let's suppose you mix up some cornstarch and water. Then you drop a brick in it. Common Sense will tell you that the behavior of fluids caused them to splash and move out of the way of the brick. In fact, when you try this, the brick hits as though the cornstarch and water were a solid surface. And then only after a long delay will it begin to sink. Cornstarch suspensions are an interesting phenomenon called non-Newtonian fluids. If you make up a large batch of starch water suspension, you can actually walk on its surface so long as you move briskly. Going back to math, it can be proved that 0.9 repeating, that is 0.99999, is the same quantity, the same quantity as 1. Common Sense tells us they're different quantities, but mathematically it's clear they are the same. Light exists as both a wave and a particle. Water vapor is lighter than air. The earth is round and orbits the sun. All of these defy Common Sense, the phenomenological evidence of our senses. Scientists don't rely on Common Sense. When we approach a difficult problem, Common Sense is more likely to get in the way than to be a benefit. As Albert Einstein has reputed to have said, Common Sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18. We have to learn to discard what Common Sense tells us in favor of empirical evidence and rational deduction. That brings me to the point of this video. Many of the arguments I have heard against the modern theory of evolution are largely about the counter-intuitive conclusions it leads to. Many people struggle when presented with the idea that bacteria are related to humans. That we shared an ancestor with every one of the animals we see in the zoo. Some have trouble accepting the age of the earth, that the Grand Canyon could have been formed by a gradual erosion and periodic uplift events over the last few million years. The literal biblical accounts are much easier to accept, and for good reason. They were written from a kind of Common Sense perspective. Pre-scientific peoples were trying to explain the world around them. Some of the conclusions they came up with were useful. Pork, shrimp, and oysters were probably a bad idea in an era of common foodborne illnesses and no refrigeration. But we replaced these ideas over time as science and technology reveal more of the actual physical laws that govern our universe. So I think that one of the principal reasons so many non-scientists distrust the modern theory of evolution is that they are valuing their common sense view of the world over the empirical evidence and logical deduction. This leads to a lot of cognitive dissonance and denialism. Ultimately it has led to a lot of anti-science feelings among the general public. And that's a shame because common sense only takes you so far in your understanding and can lead to self-delusion and ignorance. For example, biologists do not recognize a division of micro and macro evolution. There's no evidence for it, there's no mechanism that limits genetic change over time.  We have experience with small changes within a group, but none of us has ever witnessed the level of changes that occur over hundreds of thousands of years. So we invent some non-existent division between believable and unbelievable and call them micro and macro evolution. It's strictly a defense mechanism to allow us to dismiss something we don't understand. I have sympathy for the people who do this, it's a very human response, it's just not science. So I hope the next time you hear someone say about a scientific topic, come on, that doesn't make any sense. You'll stop to think about how common sense limits our understanding of the natural world. Thanks for watching.


We have some of the the most devastating health metrics in America here in this region and substance abuse is definitely one of those. We have high overdose rates, we have high usage rates, we have high addiction rates and it impacts the economy, it impacts families, it impacts local government, state government, all across the board. And this is a component of a 21st century Appalachia. It's a problem we have to solve and we're trying to solve it from within. We've got a lot of experts and a lot of expertise at the medical school and different partners that we work with and we just want to build capacity in the local medical offices on how to best approach this epidemic.


All right, so it's time for a Halloween haunt update at Canada's Wonderland. It's just your basic update. So for our houses, you have Forest of Fear, you have the Bloody Buccaneer, and you have Blackout. I actually think some of these are actually scare zones, by the way, from what I can tell. You have the Ruins, you have Bloodshed, you have your Sci-Fi house, I believe, just off there, yep, Sci-Fi house. And then we have a new scare zone coming this year that's labeled on here as well. So you have your new house, the Crypt, which was rumored to be coming, and it's 14 Nights of Terror from September 29th to October 31st. You have Spirit Manor, Returning, it's one of my favorites actually. You have this new scare zone called Wicket Hollow, which is interesting, it's on a mailbox, which usually references a haunted house. You have Code Red Returning and Cornstalkers. So Code Red, as you know, is replacing kind of like the mental asylum theme because it's now deemed inappropriate to have an asylum-themed haunted house. I'm not gonna touch on that. But here you have Spirit Manor. Again, this is my favorite haunted house at Wonderland. It's just really well done. It's approaching universal quality, in my opinion. And obviously it looks like they're adding some touches that weren't there last year. Looks like they added some vines and all that through it. I could be wrong, but it looked like it's new. And I'm hearing that it might actually house a kid's event during the day and then a Halloween haunt attraction at night. You have speakers and lights being set up throughout the entire park. And you have Code Red, which has the most amount of construction shown visible to us along with Kingswood Theater. You also have a bar coming this year, Masquerade type bar, which they're gonna test out. Hopefully I'm really excited for that. But yeah, that's all I have for an update for Halloween haunt so far. Give the video a like, subscribe if you haven't, and stay tuned for more.


Great. Recent developments from China's Ministry of Commerce today regarding export permits on critical minerals in particular graphite has impacted all of us and surprised us. Did you see this coming? Well I have to say I didn't see it coming but I'm not surprised by it Tracy. This is really the move that we saw start about two years ago with the Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S. where the Biden administration along with the folks here in Canada saw the reliance on China and the amount of minerals critical minerals that were being supplied out of China to the EV market and they saw that as a potential risk going forward as the geopolitical backdrop was really starting to sour particularly the relationship between China and the U.S. And about a week ago we are even earlier that might have been earlier this week we saw the U.S. we saw the Biden administration put restriction on semiconductor chip sales to China and I believe this is China's retaliation. However we knew that this was coming that we've the the governments have identified this as a major risk and that's why we started to see interest in creating domestic supply chains. So earlier this year we saw we decided to spin out our Albany graphite deposit that is a very very unique deposit that we have here in Ontario Canada very large deposit and with the backdrop of the Inflation Reduction Act and the amount of money that was going into battery supply chains here in Canada we made a decision that we were going to spin out the Albany graphite deposit raise some money and move it ahead towards production. However earlier this year we saw a precipitous drop in the price of graphite globally it's down about 30 to 40 percent and that's a bit of a head scratcher given the demand that we're seeing in the EV space but again where does the majority of the graphite that goes into batteries come from it comes from China. So when they saw the opportunity to put pressure on graphite pricing therefore making North American or projects outside of China less attractive we believe they took that opportunity to push the price down. Now they've taken another avenue where now they're restricting the supply of graphite out of China again highlighting the importance of creating a North American battery supply chain. So we're not surprised by it at all it's just again it's just raising its head in another form and again reinforces the need to get governments and industry moving to get this supply chain built. Well and speaking of the supply chain how do you think this is going to impact graphite importers like Japan and South Korea? It's interesting I personally believe this was a bit of a retaliation against the US but based on the statements coming out of China it sounds like it's a global restriction so it should impact it looks like it's probably going to impact the Japanese and the Koreans in the same manner and they're going to be looking for opportunities to de-risk the supply chains from their perspective as well ie de-risk away from China looking at North America or other potential avenues. All right so let me ask the obvious question where are we going to get our graphite break? Well I can tell you about one wonderful project right here in Ontario the Albany graphite deposit we are probably three or four years away from putting that into production but again we have a very very large source of very unique high-purity graphite right here in Ontario. There are a few other projects in Canada New Homan for example has a very big green clean process that they're working on right now you see their their stock is up 40% today based on the news so it looks like there's going to be an increased focus back in North American graphite producers so I think it's the time to for governments and industry to step up and start investing in these projects. You think this is going to change the EV landscape? I think it has the potential to change it significantly. The car manufacturers while we've seen a fairly significant drop off this year in EV demand I think that's just short term there's a very obviously difficult economic backdrop but I think longer term you're going to continue to see the demand for EVs continue to grow and the manufacturers the vehicle manufacturers are going to have to diversify their supply chain and what better place to do it right here in North America. Greg I know your phone is ringing off the hook so I have to say though Zentech shareholders must be very happy because you've been leaders in the graphite space and graphite technologies for a very long time. Yeah it's been a it has been a busy day surprising I was actually a little surprised at how quickly the news hit and started to resonate but again that's what Zentech's all about. Zentech has three pillars Zentech is an advanced materials development company we have our first patented product coming to market Zengard on we have it on on face masks now but we're most excited about the HVAC space and the technology we've developed there we've also got our biotech platform that we just rolled out a couple of months ago and we're incredibly excited about that but we've also got the Albany deposit and we know the value embedded in the Albany deposit so from a pure investment perspective you've got a well diversified portfolio of assets that are going to bring value in many different ways and again we're seeing how important it is to have that underpinning of Albany as a store of value for shareholders. As always Greg thank you and for more information on Zentech please go to the following website


Good morning, everybody. Happy Friday, everyone. How's everybody doing this wonderful morning? Good to see you all. Everyone on YouTube, welcome. Everybody in the cybergroup room. Everybody ready for the weekend is Friday, which is one of the worst days of the week to trade next to a Monday. I'll tell you a lot to talk about this morning and regarding by a lot of earnings that came out yesterday. I guess a lot of you have seen what happened with the job reports, all that stuff. We'll talk a little bit about that. Mark gave me a little private chat. Mark, I'm going to answer your question regarding about oil. We'll talk a little bit about that. So a lot to talk about in a short period of time, but we're very short for time because the market's opening up soon, so we want to get right into it. First of all, you see what happened with job reports. They blew the numbers out of the water. Every economist got it wrong. Now, you would think that is great news for the market. No, the market is down 187 points, and it was down already. This obviously is a very good sign that the Fed is going to raise rates even higher. That means more people are working.  That's a lot of jobs. So that means they're really going to probably raise interest rates and interest rates. Everybody's been high on this free money they've been giving out for so long, and last thing you want to know is that now they're going to start raising interest rates, and you learn that, and that's good for us because as traders, let the volatility begin. You know what I mean? But I always tell you this, I know it's for a long time.  They're not going to want to spook the market that much. That's their job because people who are elected to that position are obviously a lot connected in the market and they don't want to do that. So we're looking forward to that. Another couple of things. Oil has oil doing everyone. Oil looking great.  Mark asked me about the stock of B&O. If it's, you know, being that oil took off. You know what? Listen, we talked about this. B&O is obviously a great stock to trade regarding about what's going on with oil. But they said oil was probably going to $110. So we're about $20 off that barrel. It's incredible. That's literally almost doubled where we were, what, like a year ago, two years ago. So you could just look right here. We can look at the year chart right here and see where we're at. Yeah. So the stock was $10. We're talking like two years ago when oil was at $10, now it's at $25. So really nice steady trend with the B&O. Yes. So, you know, if you, if you're taking to trade the future and all you got, you have something right here. So that was pretty good. Oil was negative in April 2020. No, I know it was. And the stock obviously can see pretty volatile, but wasn't that it wasn't that that much off. I mean, the stock obviously has been really steady. So so you got news there. So that doesn't look good. You know, us, it's good for the industry in the trading industry, not good for anyone owns a car. So that goes that the other big news we're going to talk about is Amazon now. And, and you know what, like I said yesterday, and I know we don't trade Amazon because it's very expensive.  So that was great for day traders, you know, if you looked at it from a 2,800 up to 3,300. And it's funny, but I said yesterday, I said, you know what, we saw what happened Facebook yesterday and Facebook is not looking good at all.  I was looking for that made a little bit there. That was a really nice 10 point bounce right there. But overall, not looking good. I said, but we're talking about Snapchat night, I was telling you guys this yesterday that my kids don't nobody goes on Facebook anymore. No one likes it. Everybody's tired of it. It was one of the big pioneers. And ever since they wanted to go to Metta, you know, the virtual world, they're trying to get back. Everybody's on Snapchat. And I said, you know what, people still shopping. So I said, you know, I'm kind of thinking, you got to look what's going on in the market. So Amazon obviously did well. And I said that yes, I think Amazon's gonna probably gonna beat earnings because shoot, who does not use Amazon, right? Everyone use it and they're doing great. And they're buying up everyone at building a pretty major monopoly. And Snapchat, Snapchat blew their numbers out of the water, we're from 24 to 38.  But it's the first time they were profitable. So, you know, there's a lot going on. And you know, that's the things that I look at. And also there was a couple of stocks, which by the way, all the stocks on the watch list, all those stocks on the watch list that we're gonna be trading.  Because I said, listen, that stock is on a major, major decline. So I'm really curious to see what the shorting is on that. And the option, the puts on an options on those things on Facebook, because there's definitely a lot of room there. Listen, I say it all the time. Stock is, you know, when you trade at $200 stock. Okay, what's the difference between a $10 stock and a $200 stock? A $200 stock can still go down 200 more points, a $5 stock can only lay down five points. So that's what you're playing with. So you had that another stock that did well yesterday and just totally got hammered just all of a sudden Pinterest had great earnings and now the stock is downtrending. So there you go right there, who's great in aft hours, you know, and could it trade these stocks in the aft hours that does that nasty volatility, but you know, stock was up, you know, 24 to 32 and look, it's right back down to 25. So it looks like it's coming right back to it. So it's going to be a great volatile stock to trade. I traded Pinterest. We did really well with Pinterest. And I'm glad I got out of Pinterest because if I still had it, I probably be I probably be down 50% on my swing right now, because that's how much I love the stock. After even even though there was rumors of a buyout, whatever, but sure enough, look where it is now, not doing too well. So we got that we got those stocks on the list. Let's look at a couple of the ones. And regarding about yesterday, like we talked about the good movers, Facebook, Snapchat, Pinterest, Amazon, all that, a couple of cheap ones that and also they're picking up in today, you know, from yesterday, from today, was it the KAVL. So I spelled it wrong. I had too many things on that watch. So KAVL did really well to yesterday. Nice little pop went from $1 all the way up to $1.30. The stock took a really big hit. I like to I put it back on the watch list. I want to keep an eye on it. This one is really not bad. I mean, you never never know if it will make a little bit of a pop right here. The longer it stays there, the better it is. So you have that one, you have VNDA. Also, this stock got crushed, crushed went from was 14 and a half all the way down to 10.  So you could see it right there. Nice little trend, nice little push right there. We're going to keep an eye on that one.  And once again, nothing really that great big pop came right back straight down again.  What they're saying, because that means that the Fed is going to have no choice but to raise interest rates hawkish more than they probably wanted to. And that's where it comes down to it. I guess COVID is over because Clorox is starting to get crushed now. Clorox obviously had earnings that came out and didn't look too good yesterday. But stock has been very steady. Everyone was on the Clorox hype. Remember, you know, had that stock gone from 130 up to 230 for dollars. Remember, you couldn't even buy those wipes. The Clorox wipes nothing. Well, look at that, it's right back to it's, you know, 2019 lows. So not looking too well there with Clorox. A couple of the stocks. Yeah, you know, I looked at that Michael to the Ford. Obviously, another one with with with earnings that came out, you could see that after hours right there.  I mean, listen, whatever goes up comes down twice as hard. And once you know, once it broke this support level right here around 19, you could see it. So this stock, I mean, listen, it looks like it can come out down to the 16s now, you know, once you break that that that gap right there, that's not a really good sign. But but other than that, I think we're pretty much done. We got we got a pretty decent list. Just don't go crazy today.  Okay. And you know what? I rather just you know, unless I really, unless you can get a stock at a really, really good price with limit orders, don't go too crazy today, even though what's happening with the market right now, I don't know how the streets going to react to all these earnings, but from from when I look at it, they're not too happy. Alright, cyber traders, let's get back to the market. Anything I miss a did not call out. Anybody any any of the stocks out there? Alright, so we'll be back here at 230 everyone on YouTube Facebook Live. If you make your money for the day, like we always say, just take your money and run, we'll see you back on Monday. That's why we do this job to have the freedom that we could do it. And you just don't want to give it back. So just be careful. Alright, guys, happy trading be safe. And we'll start commentary once the market opens up at 930. Thanks.


Welcome back to the AI for good global summit here at the ITU headquarters in Geneva. Well, I'm really pleased now to have Tufi Salipa, who's come all the way from San Francisco, where he's the CEO of Toda Network. First of all, for our viewers, what is Toda? Thanks Chris. Toda is a protocol that is a layer below all the existing protocols of blockchain. So it's on the same level as TCP-IP, with that it evolved to become a company, mainly because we are strong believers in bringing a lot of incentives for people to participate into building that into a global network. And everyone to benefit from it. So it's an open source, the protocol for everyone to use. Every single blockchain can sit on top of it the same way every single machine can sit on top of TCP-IP. Of course, open source for some have alarm bells because a lot of these themes, as you know, this conference has been trust. And when you're sharing all that information, is that compatible with trust? Absolutely. And it's actually the main reason or the result that of a blockchain is adding more security. So when folks, for example, they talk about decentralized governance, autonomous decentralized governance is a security model. And that security model adds a lot of strength to a system, the way it's running, that it's not attackable by going after a central element. But at the same time, it addresses a lot of the efficiencies. When you don't have a central control that you have to audit it, and you have to check on the checker and so on and so forth, you reduce the friction. Up until now, we've seen a lot of evolution of the blockchain started with Bitcoin, which a lot of people don't admit to it, but it was exploited about five years and four months ago, where part of the machine started evolving and at the beginning of the design, they were not expected to evolve. And that's called ASICS right now, which burns more increasingly in the country of Iceland for the same transactions per second throughput. Instead, we need to, for that amount of burn, we need to get thousands of transactions, millions of transactions so everyone can benefit from it on the planet. Okay. Why have you come to this platform? Why is that useful for you? So AI security can benefit tremendously from autonomous decentralized governance. So I also run the AI decentralized as we mentioned as part of the ACM and ACM is part of this summit as well. With that, we tried to bring 870,000 AI practitioners with 280,000 cryptographers. The intent here is to send that message to a lot of the AI practitioners and show them what autonomous decentralized governance and why do we have crypto economics introduced to the machine early on and why is it so essential for the security of the machine? Now, obviously, we're at the UN. They have sustainable development goals. Does what you do fit into that or do you have the same objectives? 100%. If you look at countries like, for example, like Madagascar, I'm going to give you one simple example and you can apply it to anything of value that has a registry that you want to transfer your car from yourself to someone else. So let's take the simplest form, money. Actually, money is the simplest form in that thing of value. Any electronic money system that has been introduced to Madagascar today, Madagascar is one out of 150 other nations that suffer from the same thing. Through every transaction, the electronic money system today is going to extract wealth through every transaction from that nation. It turns out nine other people get paid when a transaction happens at the outside of that nation. Not because the electronic money system people are mean and they don't want to, because that's what the foundation of technology is based on. Instead, when you give it total decentralized governance and using distributed computing, what do they have? They have network, people, and smart phones and that's all it needs to run. So effectively end up maintaining and sustaining the nations and smart cities to sustain themselves with electronic money system and 150 other verticals that the blockchain is bringing to those nations. Okay, good example there. Tufi Saliba of Toda. I know you have a really big agenda. You're traveling to Moscow. You're going, I think, all across Europe in the next few days. Toronto and San Francisco and Seoul, Korea. Good luck with that. Thank you so much. Thank you.


The final item of business today is a member's business debate on motion 5885 in the name of Keith Brown on protecting devolution and the Scottish Parliament. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, but I invite members wishing to participate to press their request to speak buttons now as soon as possible. I invite Keith Brown to open the debate around seven minutes, Mr Brown. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and many thanks to those members who have supported this motion and allowed me to bring this important issue to the chamber, and of course those members who have stayed behind to listen. Frankly, it's a disgrace that we even have to debate this, but debate it, we must, because this chamber, this institution, this Parliament of ours is under attack, and, sadly, there are those within these walls who are complicit in that attack, and some explicitly others by their silence or even their absence. There is a phrase that's often trotted out about the Scottish Parliament which predates the existence of the Parliament, and it was part of the argument made during the referendum that brought it into being, and that is that devolution and the Scottish Parliament are the settled will of the Scottish people. That, for me, is a bit thus far and no further. Like Parnell, I'm more inclined to insist that no man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation, and indeed all the parties in this chamber signed up to the Smith Commission that said that nothing should prevent this Parliament moving on to become independent if that's what the people of Scotland voted for. There was certainly a very broad consensus in 1999 that there were a wide range of issues best dealt with here in Scotland's Parliament rather than down the road in Westminster, and I don't see any sign of a shrinking back from that view amongst the people of Scotland. On the contrary, support for extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament have grown substantially, and support for independence is regularly the majority option in frequent opinion polls, in fact, as recently as last week. What I also see, though, are hardline unionists, those who were not part of that 1999 consensus, and have resented the very existence of this place ever since, emboldened perhaps by their experience with Brexit and fuelled by dueeid reminiscences of an empire on which the sun never set, and a golden age that never existed, trying to claw back powers to Westminster and to Whitehall. The long list of legislation detailed in the motion shows that this is not a one-off issue. They are working to a template and with scant regard to democracy. To that list, we could easily add the blocking of an independence referendum and the refusal to recognise the overwhelming opposition in Scotland to Brexit and being dragged out of the European Union. We also see this phenomenon of the craven Conservatives, who will never attack anything that might represent the interests of the people of Scotland if it conflicts with what the Government in London is doing. To give you an example, there is trust fiasco that costs Scotland perhaps around £6 billion, not a word, of criticism from the Conservatives.  For example, former Labour First Minister, Henry Rucleys, who I think would be appalled at the absences on the Labour benches tonight. Henry Rucleys has branded Tory moves to curtail Scottish ministerial engagement abroad as an attack on devolution, and he has highlighted the contempt, the disrespect and the political control and coercion of the UK Government. He highlighted the Scottish Government's absolute democratic right to be pursuing international engagement and warned that this Tory Government does not recognise the spirit of devolution. I am looking at the UK Government's intention to use a section 35 order for the first time to stop the Scottish Parliament from implementing a piece of devolved legislation, one with cross-party support and majority support from MSPs of all parties. The current Labour First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, who is also more concerned about devolution than some people in this chamber, said that the moves to block the law sets, in his words, a very dangerous precedent, and that could be a very slippery slope indeed. When the unalighted Tory peer Lord Frost, who served as Boris Johnson's failed Brexit negotiator, argued that no more powers should be given to the Scottish Parliament and that some powers should be snatched back by Westminster, there were those in the Tory benches such as Murdo Fraser, Stephen Kerr and Donald Cameron, who is here tonight, who rightly condemned the column and sought to distance themselves from the proposals. I promised that Donald Cameron would mention the fact that his relative, Michael Angrum, was one of those people who spoke up in the House of Commons against the clause that allows section 35. Where is that strain of Tory these days? They avidly support Westminster's section 35 veto and they frequently call on their Westminster bosses to ignore the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament. Just this weekend, it emerged that the UK Government are blocking the deposit return scheme, as approved by this Parliament, because glass is contained in the scheme. The Welsh Government have also included glass in their scheme, but they will no doubt be told no as well. The odd thing, of course, as we know, is that the Tories have supported the inclusion of glass. I would be looking at Maurice Golden if he was here, who tweeted as long ago as 2019 that Scotland's new deposit return scheme should include glass. It is just common sense. That can only be a match to exercise inflexing constitutional muscle on the part of Westminster. Britain is financially broke and it is constitutionally broken, but even with the limited powers of devolution, this Parliament has been able to make a difference. We have been building a fairer Scotland with the Scottish child payment, the most ambitious anti-poverty measure anywhere in the UK, increased by 150 per cent in 2022. We have been creating a healthier Scotland with record high staff levels in our NHS over 28,800 more under the SNP. We are forging forward with a greener Scotland, where climate targets are among the most ambitious in the world, with a 75 per cent reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2045. We are supporting a smarter Scotland, for example, £1 billion for the Scottish attainment challenge, to support our most disadvantaged children and young people. We are promoting a wealthier Scotland with a progressive income tax system, ensuring that the majority—52 per cent of Scottish taxpayers—pay less than elsewhere in the UK while delivering extra support for our public services. That is only scratching the surface of the benefits that devolve Government, and in particular, in my view, the SNP's policies are brought to Scotland. I could go on and list many more, or the ways in which Scotland is outperforming the rest of the UK. Teachers pay, police officers pay, crime reduction, for example, but I do not have time to list all the benefits. The list is long and impressive, but perhaps other members, when they speak, will pick up that baton. The Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the Scottish people need more powers, not fewer powers. The attacks by the Tories on devolution and any failure of Labour and Lib Dems—no Lib Dems are tall here tonight to oppose them—will not be unnoticed, forgiven or forgotten by the people of Scotland. The former Tory MP and Minister, Enoch Powell, not someone I have ever quoted with relish, said that power devolved is power retained. This UK Government wants to go further and see Westminster's power regained. They want to take back control. We will not let them do that. I would end with a call to members from across the chamber—at least those who are here tonight—and certainly all those who believe in devolution from the start and still do—to unite and repatriate the power that has been stolen from this Parliament and the people of Scotland. I now call Donald Cameron to be followed by Stuart McMillan in around four minutes. It is commonplace in a member's debate to congratulate the relevant backbencher on securing chamber time, often on issues pertinent to their constituency or a health campaign or something similar. On this occasion, I struggle to do so. A motion signed only by the SNP and one green MSP tells us everything. I only have four minutes of time, so I will be concise. In amongst all the hyperbole we have just heard, I want to address three specific issues mentioned in the motion. Section 35 is intrinsic to the Scotland Act. It is part and parcel of the devolution settlement. You cannot complain that devolution is under threat when the section at issue was explicitly included by Donald Dewar and the founders of devolution in the Scotland Act itself. Its use in January was justified. Whatever your views on the substance of the GRR bill, there is a powerful argument that it poses adverse consequences for UK-wide equality policy. A fact the SNP Government will warn about during the passage of the bill, and instead of working with the UK Government to resolve this amicably, the Scottish Government is heading for the courts. Secondly, on levelling up, I have made this point before, but I reiterate it. At no point did the SNP ever complain about the EU injecting funds into local communities in the decades when we were members of the EU, but now that the UK Government is doing the same, they are appalled. The SNP knows fine well that the devolution settlement allows direct investment from the UK Government to devolve policy areas. That is replicated across the world in federal or quasi-federal systems. Look at Australia, look at Canada, look at Germany, far from undermining devolution, that is strengthening. Thirdly, on Sewell, I have no doubt that Sewell is under strain and needs rethinking. But on the point of collapse, we pass LCMs regularly in this Parliament without a division. We did so only last week or the week before. The Scottish Government has itself consented to a raft of post-Brexit legislation passed by the UK Government about fisheries and animal welfare, for instance. Do we still pass legislation week after week, year after year, on Scotland only matters? Of course we do. But let none of that get in the way of the predictable SNP hysteria about a constitutional crisis, a loose talk about a full frontal attack and a scorched earth policy when it comes to devolution. Because, Deputy Presiding Officer, this is all they have left. The sound you hear is the noise of empty, empty rhetoric, the resounding gong and clanging symbol of nationalist grievance. And does any of that help the people of Scotland? Does any of that help the person waiting at a pier on Mull for a ferry that doesn't arrive? Does that help the teenager waiting months on end from mental health appointments that doesn't happen? Not one bit. Deputy Presiding Officer, if the SNP wants to use members' debate time to drag up old grievances or put a spin on new ones, they can do so. But voters are watching and wondering. They know this is a tired, directionless Government that has no new ideas even with the new First Minister. They know that the SNP first elected in 2007 with so much promise, so much hope, has let them down these last 16 years. They know that this Government, which controls the most powerful devolved legislature in the world, is not making full use of the powers it already has. They know that if the SNP just for once concentrated on what matters to people in their everyday lives, how much could improve, how much could be achieved. And, as a result, they know that when the question is asked, why is devolution failing, the answer is to be found sitting on the benches to my right. I now call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Collette Stevenson again around four minutes. Thank you very much. First of all to Mr Cameron. I think it's fair to say that the Scottish Government hasn't consented to every LCM. This member's debate is timely, and I do thank Keith Brown for securing it, but I would encourage the Scottish Government to use some of its time for a full debate on this critical issue. Now, Keith Brown touched upon the fact that there are no Lib Dems in the chamber. This is a part from yourself, Presiding Officer, but you are clearly not speaking today. I would, just to correct the record, I am not a Liberal Democrat saying that I am the presiding officer, Mr McMillan. Okay, but certainly there are no Lib Dems sitting here in the chamber, the party that claims to defend devolution, that every party in this Parliament has its own position on the constitution. I doubt whether those positions will change anytime soon, and I have been an independent supporter for as long as I can remember, and that will never change. It will come as no surprise that I want this Parliament to have the full range of powers of independence, so we can make that positive difference to the lives of present and future generations. Others in the chamber will disagree with my position, which is their right. However, whilst we do have a Parliament with limited devolved responsibilities, there should be respect for it from all quarters, yet the respect agenda that Douglas Ross previously spoke about has been shredded. Over 30 years ago, John Major used the word subsidiarity to help him to secure Tory support at that time for the Maastricht Treaty. Ultimately, he helped to secure enough anti-European supporters of his party by selling the message of UK decision making within the EU. Over the years, Maastricht was never going to be enough, and the internal divisions in the Tory party regarding Europe raged until the Brexit referendum in 2016. What Scotland and Wales have witnessed since 2016 has been the erosion of the already limited powers of devolution. The Tories made many arguments against remaining in the EU, including that it was costly, centralising and democratic, and removed decision making from the UK Parliament. They now seem to have forgotten those arguments and are effectively gaslighting the people of Scotland when we dare to make the same arguments against this failed union. The internal market act was always a ruse to get the Tories back into position of control over Scotland, i.e. you can have your devolved powers as long as we agree with them. Douglas Ross in November 2020, at the policy exchange, pitched his thoughts to save his precious union. There are just a few of his quotes on that day. First of all, the UK is a partnership of nations, just like the European Union. As Scotland has two Governments and in contrast to international comparisons, there is no rigid hierarchy between the different tiers of government. They both have areas of responsibility and management. They both have a role. We will not strengthen the union by turning back the clock. We will only strengthen support for independence. The UK Government needs to do more to involve the devolved Administrations in delivering our new international role. They will have to implement trade deals, so they should have a role in producing them. With the end of freedom movement, we will need to see more flexibility in our immigration system to account for the needs of different parts of our country, which the devolved Administrations are well placed to represent. Finally, the key to this working will be a restatement of the respect agenda in engagement and communication. Despite all this from Douglas Ross, Scotland is now seeing an erosion of the powers of this Parliament. The UK Government is trying to turn the clock back and remove, piece by piece, the limited powers of devolution that are not even attempting to hide it anymore. It is brazen. Scotland has a choice to make. Are we happy to be subsumed back to the pre-devolution years, where the sole decision maker comes on a Westminster-based elite? The EU integrationism that the Tories fought against is now a UK integrationism approach to dismantle devolution. That will continue unless Scotland uses its voice to defend this Parliament and everyone who lives here. I am very grateful to Keith Brown for bringing this important debate today. This Parliament might just be 24 years old, but in the years since 1999 Scotland has made great strides thanks to devolution. That includes free university tuition, building more social housing per capita than the UK, record high health funding, the creation of Social Security Scotland, free personal care and driving forward on fair work. When Scotland voted for this Parliament, the Conservative Party was overwhelmingly against it, and some would argue that they have resented the existence of this Parliament ever since. For my colleagues here, lucky enough to be elected to this Parliament, though, I would like to think that they all support this institution and want, at the very least, to protect devolution. I actually want to see devolution enhanced, and the clear majority of us in this chamber want to see Scotland become an independent country. This Parliament is free from the threats of Westminster, vetoes and interventions. In recent months, we have seen that a Tory Westminster Government, rejected by the people of Scotland, used for the first time ever a section 35 to veto legislation approved by over two thirds of this Parliament. A couple of years ago, this Parliament unanimously voted to incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law, but the UK Government filed a court case to stop it. The Internal Market Act paved the way for a power grab on Scotland's Parliament, and the Tories are now using it as a cover to veto another policy supported by a majority of MSPs, the deposit return scheme. Other countries can make these things work even under devolution. The Tories might not like to hear that, but that is just the way it is. The state of South Australia has had a deposit return scheme for over 45 years, even though there will not be a nationwide scheme until 2030, and glass is included in the scheme there. I should say that Labour Governments were not immune from vetoing the wishes of the Scottish people or indeed those of its own representatives from Scotland. As an example, they ignored the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland in the 1979 devolution referendum. Nowadays, we have cure-stammers, Labour, joining the Tories as born-again Brexiteers, yet again ignoring the wishes of people in Scotland. This pattern makes it pretty clear to me that, while Scotland tries to make progress within the UK, Westminster will intervene when it disagrees with policies, even though Scotland voted for the members of the Parliament and rejected the UK Government. Whether it measures to help the environment to make life that bit easier for minorities or even to protect the rights of our children, the UK Government has no shame and seemingly vetoes things just because it can. That is not democracy. The Parliament is having its powers restricted. If that is what a so-called union of equals looks like, more and more people will realise that the only way to ensure progress for us to build a fairer, greener and a more prosperous country is for Scotland to become independent so that we can chart a better path. When I saw Keith Brown's motion, I thought that I could predict the debate, and, thus far, it has lived up to my expectations. It is a debate about the constitution, in my view, rather than a focus on delivering for the people of Scotland. Scottish Labour is a party of devolution. We campaigned for it, we introduced the legislation to make it a reality, and we used its powers to the max from day one. Two decades on, where I will agree with previous speakers, is that we need better Government, but we also need stronger accountability in Scotland. What I would say to the SNP colleagues in the chamber tonight, and indeed the Tories, is whether it is our NHS, access to mental health, two-tier dentistry, failures in educational attainment, the delays that we saw with getting on and using the social security powers, setting up a Scottish energy company and, most recently, the DRS. I do not think so, thank you. The people of Scotland are clear that they want both of Scotland's Governments to work together, and that is what grown-up Governments do in Europe, even when they have totally different politics. I want to comment on the section in the motion that I agree with and recognise that the Tories have put massive pressure on the devolution settlement, particularly following Brexit. The work that the constitution, Europe, external affairs and culture committee carried out explained the tension and made a powerful case for change. That is what we in Scottish Labour are focusing on, rebuilding our relations with our European neighbours. The Erasmus replacement scheme would definitely be a start. On the GRA section 35 order, I too expressed disappointment, because that section 35 was supposed to be an enabling mechanism, not a blocking mechanism, and that principle was agreed by all parties. It is interesting that, in 1998, the Tories moved an amendment to the Scotland Bill requiring UK ministers to publish legal advice. However, the UK Government has so far refused to publish their legal advice. That would make life a little bit more interesting, I think. Collette Stevenson mentioned the DRS today's debate. For the internal market exemption for the DRS, the UK and the Scottish Governments appeared to have been working together quietly carrying out the work that is necessary under the internal market act to secure an exemption. Single-use plastics were exempted, but even from the Scottish Government's publications it is clear that months went by where the heavy lifting did not happen and months were wasted. That is now coming home to roost, not just for the SNP-Green Government, but it is a massive pressure for businesses planning ahead and a huge disappointment for those of us who want a workable scheme. The minister's statement today took absolutely no responsibility for the Scottish Government's action or lack of action in some cases. I have met key stakeholders in the past few weeks who, despite repeated requests, have not been given the opportunity to meet with the minister responsible for this scheme. We need to improve devolution and better quality of government in Scotland, but we crucially need both the UK and Scottish Governments to work together, even though they disagree with each other, for the better of Scotland, not just to grab headlines and have a fight with each other. No, thank you, I have less in a minute to go. I totally agree with some of the points in the motion about the cliff edge that the retained EU legislation bill would have created. I am proud of the work that our SCAC committee did to make the case for change. Labour strongly argued for a U-turn from the Tory Government, which they eventually delivered, but it took a lot of campaigning from us, but also from cross-party lobbying and from businesses and from stakeholders. We delivered devolution and we appear to be the only party that is still interested in transforming the settlement to make it work, because, as colleagues have said, we have been here for two decades and we need to transform the UK. That is where I think I appreciated the opportunity of this debate, because we need to move power out the centre, strengthen democracy in both Westminster and Holyrood, and empower our local authorities and communities. That has not been mentioned tonight and that is core to devolution, not leaving our councils cash-strapped for over a decade without the resources to provide the basic services that our constituents need. That is the transformative change that people across Scotland need. In summary, we need Scotland's Government, whether it disagrees or not, to co-operate where it matters in the interests of Scotland's people and businesses, and we need to elect a UK Government to get on with that job with the constitutional transformation that we need but will not be delivered by the Tories, the SNP or the Greens. I thank my friend and colleague Keith Brown for bringing this important debate to Parliament, and it is very timely, given the events of the weekend and the undermining of this Parliament's legislative competence by the actions of the Secretary of State for Scotland over DRS. I find myself tonight, as the only member of this Parliament who legislated for the establishment of this Parliament as a member of the House of Commons from 1997 to 2001. I had the privilege of listening to every debate on the floor of the house on the passage of the Scotland Act. I listened at length to Mr Cameron's relative, Michael Ancrum, in his long, long, long contributions to that debate. I also listened to contributions from the late Secretary of State for Scotland and our First Minister, Donald Dewar, and to Henry McLeish, who did all the heavy lifting on the implementation of the Scotland Act. I cannot let Sarah Boyack's speech pass without saying that I think that they would be horrified by what has now become the Labour Party's opinion in Scotland. Having listened to their contributions, Michael Ancrum's contributions and the contributions that have distinguished Liberals in the House of Commons, Jim Wallace, Ray Meekie and Michael Moore, all of whom conveyed the importance and the concept of self-government being at the heart of the project for Scottish devolution. That attitude ran through, even though I was sitting there as a Scottish nationalist. I could hear in all of the contributions from those Labour and Liberal members—Mr Ancrum did not take that view—a commitment to the concept of self-government within Scotland, and that is being shredded in front of our eyes. The Internal Market Act and the Substitute Control Act, just to mention two elements, are devastatingly damaging pieces of legislation that do not try to confront the concept of the Scotland Act that was legislated on in 1998 by the front door, but by the back door. They do it by using the exclusive Brexit to undermine the legislative competence of this Parliament, and we are now living with the consequences. To everybody in Scotland, I say that we better wake up to what is happening to the Parliament that we all voted for in the 1997 referendum.  I say to my colleagues and other parties, and they know how seriously I take those questions, that this is happening in front of our eyes, and we have to act together collectively to try to resist it. When I sat with Maggie Chapman in the Smith commission in the aftermath of the referendum, we pleaded for the cementing of the Sewell convention so that we could go further than the concept put on the record by Lord Sewell, that the UK Parliament would not normally legislate with regard to devolve matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. We pleaded for that to be put into cement, and we have some token words that Westminster would not normally legislate over the heads of the Scottish Parliament in the 2016 Scotland act. Look what has happened since. It has been used as frequently as any element of the parliamentary process that goes through this building on a statutory instrument basis. It is now common place for this Parliament's views to be ignored by the United Kingdom Government. That was not the settlement that was crafted in 1998. If we do not wake up to the threat that is coming our way as a consequence of all of this, then we will be witnessing the dismantling of the effective competence of this Parliament. I apologise for mentioning Donald Cameron in my very last minutes, because I should allow him the opportunity to intervene if he wishes, but he can do it some other time to me. Mr Cameron accused us of not making full use of the powers available to us. This Parliament did so on DRS. It made use of the full powers available to us, and our powers and our competence have been shredded by a malicious United Kingdom Government, and all parties in this Parliament need to resist it. As you have just finished, I now call Karen Adam to be followed by Maggie Chapman around four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I congratulate Keith Brown on bringing this motion to debate in the chamber this evening. I also echo the calls of my colleague, Stuart McMillan, that this should be, in fact, a Government debate too. This is something that we should be highlighting to the Scottish people.  Without its presence in the chamber, Parliament cannot lawfully sit, debate or pass any legislation. Carved into the silver, the words, there shall be a Scottish Parliament. At the reopening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Scotland's First Minister called this mace a symbol of the great democratic traditions from which we draw our inspiration and our strength. Of the founding words of our Parliament, he said, through long years those words were first a hope, then a belief, then a promise, now they are reality. That reality, which we call devolution, has delivered us free tuition, record high health funding, a new social security system, delivering 13 benefits, including the Scottish child payment, free prescriptions, free bus travel for over 60s and under 22s, free school meals for all children in P1 to P5, public ownership of ScotRail, free ITIS, free NHS dental care for under 26s, free period products to all who need them, better gender balance on public boards, world-leading climate targets and those, Presiding Officer, are just a handful of the achievements of this Parliament, which brings me to the very purpose of the debate today. Why, after more than two decades of devolution, are we having to debate about protecting it? Four minutes is nowhere near enough time to catalogue litany of threats the UK Government has levied upon Scottish democracy, but it is important in this debate to remind ourselves precisely why Scotland must be vigilant. The quickening creep of authoritarianism, the on-going dilution of Scotland's powers and growing disrespect from the UK Government with regard to Scottish democracy. We do not need to look far to find cause for great concern only a few weeks ago in the English Council elections. Local election observers claimed that more than 1 per cent of voters, half of whom appeared to be from minority ethnic backgrounds, were turned away from polling stations. Does she share my confusion that some parties in this Parliament seem not to be overly bothered by the issues that she raises, despite the fact that the last time this Parliament was subjected to veto-estates legislation in one form or another to this extent, Queen Anne was on the throne? I agree with my colleague that this is extremely concerning and I would have hoped that colleagues' cross-party would take this a lot more seriously than I feel is being shown by showing up in chamber today. Not content with restricting voting rights to the UK Government has also set its sights on other tenants of our democracy, including the right to protest. Protests that are deemed by the UK Government to be too noisy can now be shut down as a result of Tory legislation. So what does all this point to? An overbearing governing party at Westminster seeking to circumnavigate the foundations of democracy? Deep down the Tories know that they are losing their grip on power in the only way that can cling on to even the remote suspicion of electoral success is to remove the rights of voters and restrict the voices of those who oppose them. While those might be shocking revelations south of the border in Scotland, we have come to know, sadly, all too well the dictatorial tactics of those who simply cannot accept that the Scottish people have roundly rejected their vision of Scotland at every single election for nearly the past seven decades. In their desperation, they turned to interfering with our democracy, with our culture wars and wedge issues, criminalising asylum seekers fleeing war with illegal migration bill, blocking legislation that received a supermajority of support in this Parliament, aiming to make the lives of trans people just a little bit easier, blocking our efforts to tackle climate change with the deposit return scheme. It is clear that we must not only retain the devolved powers that we already have, but accelerate the pace at which we diverge and ultimately break away from this Westminster Government, a Government that is as morally corrupt as it is democratically bankrupt. What we need, Presiding Officer, is independence. When Tory Brexiteers claimed back in 2016, during the EU referendum campaign, that they were going to take back control, few of us thought our own Parliament would be in their sights. But that is where the disastrous Brexit project has headed. It is not enough to withdraw from the collaborative cross-national politics of the European Union. We must now also unpick the progressive politics of devolution, apparently. Centralising power in the corridors of Westminster, where anyone can have a say, so long as your pockets are deep enough and you have friends in high places, was the logical next step. We find ourselves being blocked from introducing a policy, the deposit return scheme, which was once supported by all parties in this chamber, which was legislated for back in 2020, before the Internal Market Act had passed, and which is wholly within the devolved competencies of this Parliament. It sounds absurd, and indeed if you ask our European colleagues for whom deposit return schemes are a long-standing part of public life, it is indeed absurd that such a constitutional crisis should be caused by a simple recycling scheme. But let's be honest, we all know that this isn't about glass bottles or recycling. This is about the Tory's fundamental and long-standing opposition to the principle of devolution. It is the same principled opposition that led to the section 35 challenge to the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. We explicitly wrote into our legislation that it would not affect the Equalities Act, yet this was not good enough. Making life a bit simpler for marginalised people is clearly less important to the Tories than taking back control from democratic devolved Governments. At least they've mostly been open about their opposition to devolution. Such behaviour is not entirely unexpected. Labour, on the other hand, the self-proclaimed architects of devolution, are just sitting back and watching as the UK Government ride roughshod over this Parliament. Their encouragement for all sides to use a common frameworks approach to resolve the GRR dispute is utterly disingenuous when we know that Westminster routinely bypasses those frameworks whenever it suits them. Keith Brown. I thank Maggie Chapman for taking the intervention. I had tried to intervene on Sarah Boyack. I was going to make the point that, although she is the only Labour Speaker, the only person left in the chamber, I believe her sincerity in saying that she supports devolution, not least going back to the time in a campaign where her father ran a marathon to raise money for the Scottish Assembly, as it was called. However, is Maggie Chapman, like me, utterly dismayed that the strongest Labour voice in defence of this Parliament is the First Minister of Wales? I think that that is pretty shocking and, in fact, a betrayal of everyone who fought so hard to ensure that Scotland had a Parliament of its own in the first place. The current situation raises serious and fundamental questions about the future of this Parliament. I am deeply concerned that the behaviour of the UK Government and the blanket powers that they have granted themselves through the internal market act will lead us into deadlock that will make much of this Parliament's work impossible. This Green and S&P Government has a democratic mandate to deliver our shared programme of policies on which we were elected. However, as it stands, between the IMA and the ultimate veto of section 35, there is a real doubt that we will be able to make much progress that the UK Government will not try to block. Just this week, a UK Government source told the media, not the Scottish Government, that they may withhold permission for greater marine protections despite this being a policy that they are already rolling out in English waters. So, what will be next? Will they try to take back free bus passes from our young people because they want a single internal market for public transport? Will they block our plans for rent controls because they put the profit of private landlords above the right to a decent affordable home?  It is increasingly clear that the Tory UK Government is on borrowed time and it knows it. Rishi Sunak, Alistair Jack and their colleagues seem determined to burn the place down on their way out. Members of this chamber from across all parties should be uniting to defend the democratic mandate of this Parliament and the democratically cast votes of our constituents because right now devolution faces an existential threat. Thank you before calling the next speaker. Due to the number of speakers who want to participate in the debate and given the time, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate up to 30 minutes. I invite Keith Brown to move such a motion. Moved. Thank you, Mr Brown. Do members object to the debate being extended up to 30 minutes? That is agreed. I therefore call the next speaker. Jim Fairlie will be followed by Christine Grahame around four minutes. I congratulate my colleague Keith Brown for bringing forward this motion, which so clearly identifies the assault on the powers of this Parliament by a UK Government led by a party who never wanted any kind of Scottish control over Scottish affairs. They are now clearly doing everything in their power to neuter our ability to govern, as is to do so by the people of Scotland for the people of Scotland. The history of the process of the tax laid out in the motion before us has been in play since the leave vote in 2016, but I am going to focus on one area in particular to give context to what it means in reality as opposed to an abstract consideration of principle. As important as the principles are, the direct effect is more important to the folk in their day-to-day lives. As a house sheep and cattle farmer with a diversified catering business, on the day the vote leave was confirmed, I was at the Royal Highland show in England, there was a palpable feeling of shock around the ground because nobody in the farming community thought it was actually possible, except it was possible in England, not Scotland. My concerns around this has gone back to the Scottish referendum, however, when my biggest fear for the farming sector was the very strong rural voices of French and German farmers advocating for the sector EU-wide, we would be lost to us and we would be at the mercy of a UK Government who had long espoused the theory that food was a global commodity that was easily enough acquired. Domestic production was not their priority and the sector would be betrayed in the same way as the fishing industry was on entering the common market. I was so concerned about it that I attended the autumn conference of the NFU where a certain David Mundell was the guest speaker. I asked him the question, where will the powers over agriculture lie now that England has overridden the people of Scotland's desire to stay in the EU? He obfuscated and said that we would now have even more powers. I went to the spring conference and asked the same question of their Scottish leader Ruth Davidson. She was more ablliant, I have to say, but essentially said the same thing as Mundell. In my follow-up I asked the same amount if the same amount of money would be available and would the Scottish Government have full powers over agricultural policy to deliver the needs of the Scottish people? Her response was more telling this time. She said, well, he who pays the piper calls the tune. So the intent was clear from day one. Since then, the New Zealand and Australia trade deals will harm our agricultural sector. The UK Internal Market Act will harm agriculture and many other areas, as we are already hearing in this debate. The Substitut Control Act limits our powers to support sections of our community, like hill and upland farming, if the UK Government chooses to use it, as it has done with the UK Internal Market Act. All of those major issues in agriculture are tiny parts of the overall move to stifle our right as a Government and the will of our people to be governed by the people they elect to do so. The evolution was designed from the start to halt the inevitable and irreversible move for Scotland to be an independent country. And now that the confidence and the self-belief of the people of Scotland is becoming evident, they, the Westminster parties, are flexing their muscles to try to contain and control it. The Labour Party were always terrified of this day coming, so much so that they set the trap that is now being sprung by the Tories. The 1998 Scotland Act was their method of giving what they believed was just enough power to Scotland to quell any feelings of nationalism, which was not British nationalism. It was for that reason that they wrote the clause in the bill that allowed the power over constitutional affairs to be reserved. How many people voting in the election to establish this Parliament knew that the price that we would pay to Labour paymasters for that was the very inalible right to self-determination. It is that alone which ties the hands and makes obsolete the votes of the Scottish people when it comes to where our constitutional future lies. The Labour Party are the modern sellers of Scottish rights for English gold in the mould so important to Burns. They were wrong to do it and it must be reversed. The 1998 Scotland Act should be amended to repatriate the powers of the sovereign will of the people to be exercised in the normal democratic manner by the people of Scotland alone, and without needing the Governor-General to approve it. To deny that right to the people is to believe, to belie the fact that this united kingdom is a democracy. If it is not a democracy, why should the rest of the world or the people of Scotland pretend that it is? Thank you. I now call Christine Grahame for around four minutes, Ms Grahame. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. When the Scottish Parliament reconvened on 1 July 1999 after 300 years of being abolished as part of the union with England, and for the benefit of the sole occupant and the Labour benches, two occupants on the Tory benches and the deserted Liberal Democrat benches, I quote the words of Scotland's first First Minister Donald Durer. There shall be a Scottish Parliament. Through long years those words were first a hope, then a belief, then a promise.  Today we look forward to the time when this moment will be seen as a turning point, the day when democracy was renewed in Scotland, when we revitalised our place in this, our united kingdom. This is more than our politics and our laws. This is about who we are, how we carry ourselves. The past is part of us, but today there is a new voice in the land, the voice of a democratic Parliament, a voice to shape Scotland, a voice for the future. Walter Scott wrote that only a man with soul so dead could have no sense, no feel of his native land. For me, for any Scott, today is a proud moment. A new stage on a journey began long ago and which has no end, close quote. I was there, I heard those lyrical words at the rebirth of this ancient Parliament. I repeat, a journey which began long ago and has no end. Many of us were then inexperienced our first steps into formalised politics, learning how to be effective. In my case it is an opposition-backed bencher and committee convener. Twenty-four years on, this Parliament has matured to find its Scottishness, its social democratic values, its distinctive priorities. I am proud of free personal care, brought in by the Labour Liberal Coalition, minimum unit pricing, free prescriptions by the SNP, concessionary fairs, free childcare and the more recent child payment. I have observed six Governments in my six sessions here, and not one of them has been perfect, but they have been accountable at the ballot box to the Scottish electorate and the electorate has spoken loud and clear for the second time in this Parliament, delivering an overall majority indisputably committed to Scottish independence. A Government that we did not vote for, for our only six Tory MPs, to the SNP45 MPs, denies, even defys devolution, let alone the democratic right of the people to referendum, interfering in devolved areas. What next? Against the will of this Parliament, which controls planning law and against the will of the Scottish people, nuclear power, power devolved is indeed power retained and for the current Tory Government, power regained. This is a red alert to all who support devolution, if not independence. We have, as a nation, travelled so far in nearly a quarter of a century regaining our Scottish voice. The remedy lies where it must with the Scottish people who are sovereign, not Westminster. Use it loud and clear at the next election. Only independence gives you the Government and policies that you vote for. That is, to this chamber, democracy. I now call Jamie Hepburn to respond to the debate. Minister, around seven minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I also join with others in thanking Keith Brown for initiating this debate? I agree with John Swinney very much. It is important that we have this debate. Many members, Christine Grahame, we have just heard from, Collette Stevenson, Karen Adam, Stuart McMillan, and others have talked about the advances that we have secured through devolution. Maggie Chapman has talked about those that are yet to come. It is important that we have this debate, because if this Parliament cannot stand up for the advances of devolution, then who will? I am grateful for those who have taken the time to participate. I do genuinely regret that it has been limited from some quarters. In some sense, you would expect the Tories not to take part in this debate with Gusto, but I do agree very much with the remarks from Donald Cameron. He said that who signed this motion that we debate tonight, who signed it, tells us all we need to know. I could not agree with that sentiment more, Mr Cameron, and it tells us all we need to know. More disappointment has been the absence of Labour participation of 24 MSPs elected to this place. Only one has sought to contribute. That is no slight on Sarah Boyack, as with Keith Brown. I agree with him when he talks of her sincerity in her remarks on defending devolution. At least she took the time to participate in the debate, although I have to say her sense of regret that we debate the constitution rather than how we deliver for the people of Scotland seem to me to be fundamentally based on a false premise, because they are inextricably interlinked with one another. At least she took part. It is of genuine regret again that there is not a single Liberal Democrat politician who took part. I say that on the basis that we can expect it from the Tories, but when you have the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, along with others in the SNP and the Greens who fought so hard for the establishment of this institution, you would expect them to stand up when they have to be taking account of the threats to this institution. Can I say quickly to Stuart McMillan that the Scottish Government will be very happy to bring forward a debate on this very matter, because this is an issue that is sadly unlikely to go away anytime soon. The Scottish Parliament and the Government have maintained a high level of trust and support from the people of Scotland. The latest social attitude survey shows that three times as many people trusted the Scottish Government to work in Scotland's best interests than they do of the UK Government. Can I say in that regard to Sarah Boyack when she talks of two Governments working together? It is not for want of trying. I can tell you that there are many instances where I have sought to engage with the UK Government and many of my colleagues have as well. It is not often reciprocated. People in Scotland fundamentally will want decisions to be taken here in Scotland. That principle is under attack. Decisions taken by the UK Government, especially since 2016, have highlighted the inherent vulnerability of devolved institutions within the UK's constitutional system. Fundamental changes can now be seen in the relationship between the Governments and Parliaments at Westminster and Holyrood. As we have heard, the UK Government has undermined the Sule Convention and appears intent on continuing to do so. If what was unheard of prior to Brexit has been normal, as Keith Brown quoted Mark Raithford, no supporter of independence for Scotland or indeed for Wales, has said that. I quote, when it became inconvenient for the UK Government to observe Sule, it just went ahead and road roughshodd through it. That is not how devolution is supposed to work. As Keith Brown said, we have the absurdity of a Labour First Minister of Wales standing up for Scottish devolution more than the Scottish Labour Party are prepared to do. The UK Government is increasingly using novel methods to block some of this parent's legislation. It has referred the United Nations Convention to the Rights of the Child Bill to the Supreme Court. It has blocked royal assent of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill using parts of the Scotland Act that had not been used before. On the latter, one of our numbers said that something that I thought was quite telling to the BBC said of that move feels like a politically malicious act, and I think that it is about time that Viceroy Jack got back in his box. That was not said by any member of my party or of the Greens supporters of independence, but by Paul Sweeney. It would have been nice if he had been here tonight to take part in the debate. On the issue of section 35 on Donald Cameron's comments, section 35 might be in the Scotland Act, but it is meant to be in there as a last resort. The UK Government has not followed the memorandum of understanding in avoiding the use of that provision through negotiation and engagement. That goes back to the point that I have made in respect of Sarah Boyack's remarks. It is not just as simple as the Scottish Government and the UK Government working together. As we have seen with the Stule Convention, once they have set a precedent, the UK Government finds it easier to justify using a power repeatedly, eroding our hard-won settlement. Their disrespect for devolution can be seen in other ways. On the retained EU law bill, ministers received a request for legislative consent on a Friday afternoon, only to hear in the following Monday in the lords that the UK Government would proceed without that consent. We can see this from the UK Government's disregard for the mandate that the people of Scotland has given this Parliament for holding an independence referendum. Again, the UK Government's convenience supersedes Scotland's democratic principles. This dismissive approach to devolution of democracy has already had real-world effects. The internal market act imposed in Scotland demonstrates how damaging overriding this Parliament can be to the devolution. We have seen what has happened in respect of the deposit return scheme. Again, in respect of the notion that the two Governments should work together, there was an attempt of engagement over the past two years to try to secure that arrangement. The UK Government made an 11th hour attempt on Friday night to sabotage that scheme that we have legislated for. The internal market act has also given UK ministers new powers to spend directly on devolved services in Scotland, similar to levelling up and regeneration. In relation to levelling up funding, I thought that Donald Cameron was either ill-informed and I have never found him doing a man who is ill-informed or disingenuous when he suggested that the Scottish Government has never complained about the EU providing funding for the people of Scotland. The key difference, and he knows the key difference, is that that funding was provided via the Scottish Government, which enabled a coherent policy approach rather than a UK Government riding roughshod over the elected Government of Scotland. This is not what the people of Scotland voted for. That is why we need to take another constitutional path. The Government remains committed to the belief that decisions about Scotland are best made to the people who live in Scotland. First, we will always stand up for the gains made by devolution and the process of its erosion by Westminster underlines its limitations. Only independence would secure Scotland's democratic future where decisions about Scotland are taken by the people who live here through this elected Scottish Parliament. Thank you, Minister. That concludes the debate, and I close this meeting appointment.


Hello, everyone. My name is Max Millian Padilla. I'm a fourth year medical student at the University of Utah and Those were two great presentations. We saw tough acts to follow, but I'll do my best First of all, thank you to Dr. Olson and everyone here at the Moran Center for the opportunity to speak to you today The topic I'm going to be presenting on is laser astigmatic correction using intralase with facial emulsification Two of the most common clinical diagnoses we see in ophthalmology are astigmatism and cataracts It's estimated at 3.5 million cataract surgeries are done per year and the prevalence of astigmatism is estimated at 32.4% of the population and Since these are both very common It's a common practice to treat astigmatism at the same time as cataract surgery Here's an illustration of the traditional Asigmatic surgery it's limbo relaxing incisions using a guarded diamond blade lasers have been revolutionary to ophthalmology ever since the 1970s They have had great success in treating different anterior and posterior diagnoses LASIC One of the main lasers that's used in LASIC surgery at the beginning was the intralase laser And it was initially FDA approved for refractive surgery Recently a new laser has come out. It's called the femtosecond laser Also by the same company and it was initially approved for lamellar corneal surgery in 2003 and keratoplasty in 2008 and It's been exciting because it's also approved for cataract surgery since 2010 The use of intralase Lasers has been combined with several different procedures one common combination is To treat a patient for refractive error using LASIC surgery And then at the same time do astigmatism surgery with limbo relaxing incisions To the best of our knowledge. No one has studied using this older intralase system To do limbo relaxing incisions for astigmatism correction at the same time as they do cataract surgery so Dr.. Unbody had the great idea to do a study looking at well a case series looking at treating patients with cataracts and Astigmatism and doing the astigmatism surgery at the same time as the cataract surgery so the case series that we Came up with had a total of four patients and seven eyes fit the parameter of the study The patients ranged in age from sixty two to seventy three males one female Common co-morbidities of diabetes and hypertension All the patients approved for the study had astigmatism and all the patients also had cataracts So the patients were treated at the Moran eye center and The astigmatism LRI incisions were performed using the Moran's 150 kilohertz intralase IFS laser To make the initial Interior side cuts for astigmatism correction I wanted to highlight one of the patients that we worked on that dr. Unbody operated on to show you the process that he went through to determine their degree of astigmatism and then how much Need to be corrected using the laser So in this particular patient The refractive numbers are given here with negative thirteen point seven five plus two point five by sixty degrees OS and I'm going to focus on the left eye for simplicity and In this gentleman his best corrected visual acuity pre-op was to hunt twenty over five hundred So we use different imaging modalities to calculate the degree of astigmatism and Those modalities included the oculus pentacam IOL master and topography But I'll come back to these refractive and visual acuity numbers in the post-op slide So the oculus pentacam gave us a great reading of 1.8 on astigmatism at 77 degrees the IOL master was 1.96 at 78 degrees and Topography showed an astigmatism of 1.68 at 71 degrees So now we had the data and it needed to formulate a plan of how to treat this patient So the average of those three measurements that I showed you in the previous slides turned out to be 1.82 diopters of astigmatism at 75 degrees and the aim on this study was to have the patients be positive point two five to positive point five at the end of surgery and Here is the printout of all the calculations and laser settings that were needed to successfully carry out the surgery So as you can see here the anterior side cut was on the laser calculated out what posterior depth of the incision that was needed and Then the cut angle and cut position for the limbo relaxing incisions was also noted and the interlaced laser has a special setting where you can modify it to To do the limbo relaxing incisions So before I had mentioned the cut position and cut angle This is an example of On top here the cut position was 75 degrees the cut angle was 50 degrees So it went 25 degrees to each side of the cut position so in total This range from 50 degrees to 100 degrees And on the bottom here the cut angle. I mean cup position was 255 degrees and the total cut range from 230 to 280 degrees This just highlights the exact precision that can be attained with the interlaced laser Here's a picture of the patient's eye in the post-op period Right here this faint line is The limbo relaxing incision made by the laser And this just goes to again to show the Really precise angles and measurements that can be attained using the laser for these limbo relaxing incisions In the post-op measurements The patient's refraction was plano in both eyes his visual acuity Before I had mentioned it was 2,500 in the left eye. It's now 2025 and the topographic astigmatism measurement post-op was 0.39 diapters This fit in perfectly with the target range we had set of between 0.25 and 0.5 For the post-op residual cylinder length So Doctor and body attained the goal in this astigmatism measurement in the post-op period Here's a picture again to show the limbo relaxing incisions of the right eye on this patient post-op so right now we're still at the Somewhere initial stages of this case series. We haven't gotten The post-op topography on all the patients yet because it's a relatively new study So we don't have standard deviations But so far the initial results are that all patients are tolerating the surgery well Six out of seven patients. I mean six out of seven eyes were plano at the last visit There have been no complications noted the average pre-op cylinder Was 1.7 diapters the mean post-op cylinder is point four nine Diapters so quiet difference between these two numbers and the average post-op Incorrected visual acuity is 2025 right now Right now economics plays a huge role in medicine and the decisions we make So there are three options currently for the treatment of astigmatism in patients one option is to use glasses Another option is to use toric intraocular lenses placed in at the time of cataract surgery and a third option is to use limbo relaxing incision surgery and I recently talked to the surgery department and they told me that the toric lenses cost 350 to $400 more than standard intraocular lenses so This brings up a really important topic of price and the two lasers that are currently Being used the interlace which we have here and the newer femto second laser Have quite a bit of a difference in the price one source I net Recently estimated that the upfront cost of buying a femto second laser is $450,000 and this can go up as high as $500,000 the material and maintenance fee is around $400 per eye just to operate and Many of these have a service contract for maintenance and other Alterations to the laser that costs around $40,000 per year The interlace laser the one that we have here Costs about $375,000 at the time it was purchased in 2008 the material and maintenance fee is about $160 per eye and The service contract on our laser is a per click fee. So there's not an upfront cost Per year. It's just based on how many surgeries are done and This is some really exciting data that came out about two days ago in the I net journal So as we can see here, this looks at hypothetical break-even scenarios for buying a brand new femto second laser this box right here looks at the five-year break-even point and From what this says Depending on the number of surgeries that are done the price Per patient ranges between 500 to 900 dollars for a surgery used in the femto second laser at least that's what it would have to cost for a practice to break-even and There are several different numbers per year ranging from 250 surgeries a year to 1500 surgeries The number of non VA cataract surgeries done at the Moran Center is around 2,800 so that number can be taken into account with this figure to kind of see the break-even point of Using femto second lasers at the Moran Center So there are several reimbursement issues that come into play with Limbo relaxing incisions for astigmatism surgery The governing body for Medicare and Medicaid billing Stated recently that patients can't be charged for capsule or hexes cataract incisions or lens fragmentation Using the lasers and it's interesting because the femto second laser corporation They really stress that their laser is great at performing these three Functions But the problem is that based on what Medicare and Medicaid say Neither they nor the patients can be charged for these costs But what we can charge patients for is for astigmatism correction and Astigmatism correction we saw in the case series is Very effective if it's done with the interlaced laser the older laser So the American Society of cataract and refractive surgeons Also agreed with what the Medicare and Medicaid guidelines were So in conclusion Although our case series is not complete yet It seems like the interlaced laser is likely a safe effective and economical Alternative to corrective astigmatism surgery at the time of cataract surgery there's a Quite large price difference between the interlaced laser and the femto second laser and Many of these costs are due to the initial Per use and maintenance fees Also, there's an issue of room to house a large laser and A great thing about the laser we have at the Moran Center is that it's paid for and there isn't a yearly maintenance fee on it So it works very economically both for surgeons and for the patients To use the existing interlaced laser Future directions that we can see this project headed in is a head-to-head Comparison with other astigmatic correction techniques on effectiveness safety and outcomes It will also be interesting to see the impact on coronial aberrations That exists with interlaced surgery versus conventional surgery techniques So a big thank you to Dr. Unbi for his help and guidance with this project Also, I'd like to thank Alicia for setting up the time for me to speak to you today and Chandler crane for arranging all the files that I needed for this project So are there any questions? Yes, sir Just It's good I Was saying I'll be much more economic for everyone that'd be great Okay, and I apologize I should have said astigmatic heritage me instead of instead of limbo relaxing incisions for thank you Everyone