Good afternoon. Good afternoon everyone. My name is Bill Burns, and I'm the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It's truly a pleasure to welcome Senator Bob Menendez, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to Carnegie. The senator's remarks this afternoon could not be time-lear. Just this morning, Secretary of State Pompeo was on Capitol Hill to make the case for the Trump administration's foreign policy and defend historic budget cuts to his own department. Today's speech comes on the heels of a number of controversial policy announcements from cutting off foreign assistance to three Central American states, to formally recognizing Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, to name just a couple. And it comes as the 2020 presidential primaries pick-up steam with at least 18 Democratic candidates competing over how best to renew America's democracy and our place in a changing world. For nearly three decades, Senator Menendez has been a leading voice on these issues. Hard-nosed about our interests, confident about our values, and fiercely independent. That wasn't always terribly convenient to the White House or his own party, but he certainly earned my enduring respect and admiration, and his deeply informed efforts have enriched both our foreign policy and our democracy. Senator Menendez's voice is more important than ever today. Americans are coming to grips with the reality that we're no longer the only big kid on the geopolitical block, and they're asking lots of questions about whether and how America should lead in today's increasingly crowded, chaotic, and contested world. At a moment when democracies are having a crisis of confidence and autocrats feel the wind in their sails, at a moment when our allies are hedging and our enemies are taking advantage, at a moment when the global order we've done so much to build and defend is teetering, and at a moment when Americans are increasingly skeptical about the conventional wisdom of the Washington foreign policy establishment, we ought to ask hard questions and inject new ideas. That's precisely the role of institutions like Carnegie, and that's precisely what we try to do every day across our programs and across our global network. Our aim is to provide independent global and strategic insight and innovative ideas to advance international peace, at the intersections of technology and security, geopolitics and economics, and governance and conflict. And our responsibility, it seems to me, is to use our platform to inject alternative perspectives and to debate them. That is precisely why at this moment of testing for our country and our foreign policy, we are truly honored to welcome Senator Menendez to Carnegie. Please join me in giving a very warm welcome to Senator Bob Menendez. Thank you, Ambassador Burns. Thank you, Ambassador Burns, for that kind introduction, and to Andrew Weiss and your entire Carnegie team here for bringing us together today, and thank you all for joining. A few institutions command as much respect as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Your work embodies a serious policy analysis that's so sorely needed in Washington today, and I can tell you firsthand it's very much appreciated and relied upon every day. I also want to thank you personally, Ambassador, for not just your service, but all of your recently written works about diplomacy as a true craft and indispensable tool for solving challenges at a time that we consistently hear diplomacy dismissed, devalued, and even derided, I think, your spirited defense, both of the practice and the profession have never mattered more. It's no exaggeration to say that the democratic values and institutions that have underpinned our peace, prosperity and stability for the better part of the past century are under assault like never before. We've seen elections disrupted in political discourse manipulated by nation-state actors in ways that just a few years ago were inconceivable, and for those who think the worst is behind us, I beg to differ. In the years ahead, efforts by nation-states like Russia and China, among others, to undermine democracy will only grow in sophistication. We know that China's investments in technology and artificial intelligence have applications far beyond internal repression into the realm of influence abroad. Likewise, we know that the Kremlin's successful investment in our 2016 presidential election and this administration's refusal to hold it accountable for its interference has emboldened it to recycle its playbook. And if there's anything we've learned from Ukraine and Syria is that Russia is ever-willing to use military force to advance its aims. Are these threats new? Of course not. Yet the scale and the reach of our adversaries' efforts to undermine democracy is unparalleled since the end of the Cold War. And indeed, we might take lessons from the Cold War. For that historic struggle was not one to the size of our militaries alone. It was one to the strength of our values, by our belief in democracy, human rights, religious and social freedom, the rule of law, and free and fair competition. We students of history recognize that those democratic values and the international institutions we built in support of them are in large part responsible for the peace, prosperity, and stability the American people have enjoyed for decades. Simply put, democracy prevailed. Democratic values prevailed. Democratic institutions prevailed. We cannot forget this lesson of history. For our adversaries and strategic competitors, namely Russia and China, have also learned it. Even as they exercise greater military power, they see that their path to dominance in the 21st century will not be one on the conventional battlefield. Nor will they win by offering a better alternative to the liberal, rules-based international order. They know their path of victory is not so much the triumph of their own ideals, but rather the defeat of ours. So before we discuss the many ways that democracy is under threat, we must ask ourselves why democracy is under threat in the first place. And I believe it begins with looking inward rather than outward, because while our adversaries may have played a role in the resurgence of white nationalism and populism around the world, in the Brexit vote, in the election of President Trump, the vulnerabilities they exploded remain ours and ours alone. These seismic events are a symptom of a larger disease, a growing dissatisfaction with democracy among citizens of the western world that has festered for years. We can call out political parties and leaders who stoke hatred and division and talk about democracy being humanity's greatest hope until we're blue in the face. But we cannot ignore the very conditions that serve as breeding grounds for divisive politics and authoritarian stronghold. We face no shortage of challenges, displacement from globalization and technological change, the shrinking of wages and the concentration of wealth, climate change and migration, radicalization and extremism. Ask a worker whose real wages haven't risen since the 1990s if democracy is working for them. Ask a millennial drowning in student debt if democracy is working for them. Ask a diabetic who cannot afford insulin if democracy is working for him. Throughout history, autocratic leaders have taken advantage of this anxiety. As democratic leaders, we must address its root causes. We must make democracy deliver again. We must show our faith in our democratic institutions and processes. We must show the American people and people around the world that democracy is capable of solving problems big and small. Because if we cannot make democracy work at home, then we have no hope of selling it abroad.  The United States and Europe have spent decades working to build a rules-based international order that supports stability, preserves peace and advances economic opportunity for all. Yet these rules of the road are under steady assault by a revanchist Russia and a rising China. Some of the Trump's administration's own strategy documents acknowledge this new era of strategic competition. But diagnosis is only half of the equation. In the face of powerful destabilizing forces, we need real leadership. Unfortunately, this administration's insistence on viewing this new era of competition solely through the lens of power, without any regard to our values, leaves us unable to meet today's challenges. We face serious threats to our democratic institutions, our security, our values, and our economies. Only together will we overcome them by renewing our alliances and leveraging every tool in our diplomatic arsenal to defend good governance and advance our ideals. We need our friends to work with us. We have to be honest that in certain corners of the world, the models put forward by adversaries like China and Russia have growing appeal. Look no further than China's growing influence over the recipient Belt and Road nations, or Russia's steadfast support of Maduro and Venezuela. We in the West must offer a better model, a better example. We must offer a modern-day and appealing version of the rules-based international order. Democracy must be the guiding light of our foreign policy. Every element of our national security strategy, robust diplomacy, strong alliances, strategic economic statecraft, is stronger when we champion democracy as a fundamental governing principle. Consider our competition with China, which continues to play four-dimensional chess across the world, militarily, economically, diplomatically, and culturally. China's island-building campaign in the South China Sea threatens not just regional stability, but long-standing U.S. interests in the world's fastest-growing economic region, from the free flow of commerce to freedom of navigation to the resolution of disputes consistent with international law. Over the past decade, we've seen China bend the rules to suit its economic goals. Through the cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property rights, the manipulation of market access, the force transfer of technology, the underwriting of state-owned enterprises, and so much more. Globally, China's brand of international diplomacy I think is best described as manipulative investment. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China has used lucrative port contracts and UN votes to go its influence and win friendly trade terms. As China grows its economic reach, we cannot turn a blind eye to its domestic repression. Xi Jinping has overseen the emergence of a neo-Maoist authoritarian and civilian state from the internment of religious minorities in reeducation labor camps to ongoing repression in Tibet to the deployment of surveillance systems that rival the movie Minority Report. The President may wonder why China's repressive tactics are of any concern to us. Well, if China cannot respect the basic human rights of its own people, how can we expect it to respect the human rights of all people? This go-it-along strategy is not sustainable for the long term. The United States is a country of approximately 320 million people. China is a country of nearly 1.4 billion. We are not in a position to count the yuan for yuan in China's state-owned enterprises. But if we leverage our partnerships and lead with our allies, we don't need to be. The combined economies of the United States and our partners are a force to be reckoned with. Together, we must engage recipient-belt-and-road countries and empower them to negotiate Chinese investment on better terms. America and our allies must be present to create, shape, and set standards for the 21st century, or risk seeing the rule of law in these countries washed away in a flood of Chinese cash. Revitalizing the rules-based order means setting strong environmental and labor standards, it means standing up for human rights, it means supporting institutions that arbitrate fairly and justly, and offering technical assistance and diplomatic backing to those who need it. The longer this administration insists that the United States go it alone, the more time we give China to bend the global economy to its will and rewrite the rules of commerce in the 21st century in its repressive image. The EU, Canada, Japan, Australia, even India offer real prospects for partnership, but we spend too much time fighting over tariffs between us rather than working together to create, shape, and set standards that benefit all of us. Our best hope at establishing the rules of the road for the future of global commerce is to work together. For example, the entry of Huawei and other Chinese technologies in the European market is of growing concern because of national security questions. Adopting these technologies is akin to entering into a deal with the Chinese military as your partner, endangering Europe's telecoms infrastructure for years to come. But lecturing our allies about the dangers of relying on Chinese technology is no replacement for the development of viable 5G alternatives. Unfortunately, this administration's ability to appeal to our European friends on that basis is limited. In an environment poisoned by US positions on the Paris climate deal, the JCPOA and trade disputes, this debate on 5G may end up being a casualty of President Trump's America's alone strategy. Likewise, the United States has to work with our allies to counter aggression by the Russian Federation. Putin wants nothing more than to see the transatlantic alliance crumble and the light of our democratic values die out. As we speak, the Kremlin is likely interfering in the second round of the Ukrainian presidential election. Meanwhile, Russia's malign influence operations could destabilize upcoming European Parliament elections in May. Whatever the conclusions of the full Mueller report may be, I hope the report gives us greater insight into why the Trump administration has yet to rally our allies against Russian aggression. The attack in the Kerch Strait was nearly five months ago, yet the international response was indisputably weak. Five months later, 24 Ukrainian sailors remain in a Russian jail with no end in sight. It's unacceptable, and with no real multilateral strategy in place, we remain flat-footed while President Putin charges ahead. This is why last month Senator Lindsey Graham and I introduced the Defending America Security from Kremlin Aggression Act, or DASCA, to improve our ability to meet the Russian challenge. Our bill would invest in democratic institutions and countries most vulnerable to Kremlin aggression, increase transparency when it comes to beneficial ownership and money laundering in real estate deals. The bill increases sanctions pressure on Moscow for its aggression in Ukraine and its malicious influence campaigns, both by targeting the oligarchs complicit in the Kremlin's maligning actions as well as Russia's energy and financial sectors. Now, I know there are different views among our allies as to whether increasing sanctions pressure is the right track, but let's remember the facts of this case. Russian violations of sovereignty and ongoing violence in eastern Ukraine, the use of chemical weapons in the United Kingdom, the assault on the 2016 United States elections, aggression abroad and repression at home, support for nationalist fringe movements abroad that sow division in democratic societies, active support for Bashar al-Assad's war crimes in Syria, the violations of international law on the high seas, and the list goes on and on. I believe Moscow will continue to push until it meets genuine resistance. Our sanctions thus far have failed to change Kremlin behavior because they have not succeeded in changing the Kremlin's calculus. That's why we're proposing a new office at the State Department focused on sanctions diplomacy, something that many European friends have asked us for over the past two years. We need to build an infrastructure for a better dialogue on these issues as we assert more effective pressure on the Kremlin. Countering Russia's malign influence also demands more resources. That's why we seek to bolster the State Department's Global Engagement Center, the NATO-EU hybrid center, and other non-governmental efforts in the U.S. and Europe. Likewise, we need to be more diplomatically present in the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Without American diplomats empowered to lead, more and more countries in these regions will succumb to the Russian model. The post-World War II international order will not stand on its own. Generation after generation must renew it and revitalize it. We must strengthen institutions like NATO, the EU, the UN, the OSCE, ASEAN, the OAS, and the Brentwood institutions. We know that Russia and China have directly and indirectly helped undermine the public's faith in these institutions. That's why the first step towards countering these challenges is to renew our alliances. We need our friends with us. Together, we want to make clear to our people exactly what's at stake, nothing short of peace, prosperity, and democracy itself. We've heard some in the administration use multilateralism as if it was a bad word. As if the multilateral institutions, the United States, and our partners spent over half a century building were not born of common values or shared challenges. I fear that this missile of our alliances leaves America with a weaker hand. How much reputational damage have we suffered in pulling out of the Paris climate accord? How do we maintain our influence in the global economy after the Trump administration has announced U.S. withdrawal from four treaties since 2017? And despite positive messaging last week around the 70th anniversary of NATO, how can we restore our partner's trust that a United States under a President Trump will defend Article 5 unequivocally? Secretary General Stoltenberg was addressing the joint session of Congress last week. He remarked that it's good to have friends. Indeed, it is good to have friends. In February, I visited NATO headquarters and saw the memorial to those who lost their lives on September 11th of 2001. It was a sober reminder that the only time that NATO's Article 5 has been invoked was for us. Our allies were there for us in a time of need, and there should be no question that we will be there for them. That's why our legislation also requires Senate consent for any effort by this or any other administration to remove us from NATO. Second, we need to invest in diplomacy to effectively promote American interests. And yet, just this morning, Secretary Pompeo was before the Foreign Relations Committee for nearly three hours regarding the State Department's budget request, which for the third consecutive year proposes slashing international affairs funding. The budgets are a statement of our values. It's clear that this President does not value diplomacy. While we take comfort in knowing that Trump's budget is then unarrivaled because of congressional action, it's beyond frustrating that we must defend what we have instead of building what we need. We cannot counter Russia's aggression or compete with China with one hand tied behind our back. We're talking about America's future. We cannot and should not do this on the cheap. And yet this administration has gutted the State Department and USAID from its targeting of career diplomats to its denigrating the very idea of diplomacy. I don't need to tell this room that morale remains really low at Boggy Bottom. Many of our nation's best diplomats have left the profession. Their knowledge and their relationships around the world will take years to rebuild. On the world stage, we cannot sanction our way out of every challenge. Nor can we bomb or shoot our way out. We must invest in Korea public servants who dedicate their lives to promoting American interests abroad and amassing global expertise. Fortunately, members on both sides of the aisle understand that we need a well-resourced and fully staffed State Department and USAID. And given President Trump's assertion that he would bring on, quote, the very best people, I hope you don't mind if I just take a moment to talk to the matter of personnel. I want to correct the record about some of the administration's recent statements on the Senate confirmation process which casts a blame on the Democratic minority. Here are the facts. Under President Obama, State Department nominees took an average of about 63 days to be confirmed. Under President Trump, the average is about 74. So let's be clear what accounts for this 11-day difference. The additional vetting underway in our committee is a direct result of the administration's negligence, incompetence, or indifference. This president has put forward some of the most poorly vetted, least qualified nominees I have ever seen in 27 years of doing foreign policy in the Congress, between the House and the Senate. To give you just a taste, our committee has received nominees who have had court-issued restraining orders against them, unreported lawsuits, issues of me too, and records of what I can only describe as an unsavory behavior. The bottom line is that we need a fully staffed State Department, but quality matters, expertise matters, conduct matters. If we're not sending our best abroad, we're doing the service to the American people and our allies. Third, democracies around the world need to do a better job of banding together. We need to create and strengthen forums where democracies can address big problems together. And this can't just be about Europe, though that's where our natural and most long-standing allies are. Now, I think we have to do a better job of extending this conversation with those democratic countries across Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Countries that for whatever reason may not have played an elevated role in world affairs before. Standing up to those opponents of democracy should require all hands on deck, and we need them. The community of democracies, a forum set up towards the end of the Clinton administration by Madeleine Albright, is an interesting model. And we must be open to other ideas as well. We need engagement not just between heads of state, but also from legislature to legislature, political party to political party, civil society to civil society, business to business, and citizen to citizen. And beyond our constitutional duties to appropriate funds, ratified treaties, and confirmed nominees, Congress has a role to play as a voice of the American people. We must continue to invite world leaders and activists to our end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a world away from the chaos of the White House. And when Democrats and Republicans together engage in dialogue with our foreign friends, we not only widen our worldview, but we remember that we are all on the same American team. Finally, I want to underscore that America's power of example is only as strong as the vibrancy and durability of our own democratic system. I was saddened to see Freedom House recently downgrade the United States in its global survey on political rights and civil liberties. We've seen white power movements on the rise, metastasizing on social media, and fermenting death and mayhem from Charlottesville to Pittsburgh to Christ Church. These malign movements are very real, they're very dangerous, and they're easily exploited by foreign actors. Part of the answer lies in addressing some of the fundamental economic inequalities that have gone ignored. Part lies in our leaders rising above the politics of division and speaking out forcefully for our values. And part relies on implementing reforms to restore faith in our democracy. As I said before, we must make democracy deliver again. There are worthy reforms being proposed in Congress and by leading contenders for the White House. I, for one, am a co-sponsor of the For the People Act, which would dramatically reduce influence of special interests in our politics. We must rebuild democracy's brand. We must create a government that is more responsive to the needs of our people. We must be bold in our actions, whether it's defeating the opioid epidemic or combating climate change. To end on an optimistic note, I have encouraged that in the absence of a president willing to champion our greatest democratic values, we see democratic institutions and everyday citizens stepping up to fill the void. We see our courts raining in executive overreach. We see civil society groups playing the critical role of watchdog. We see a free press taking investigative journalism to a new level. And if our democracy is in the midst of a great test, the American people are refusing to fail. They're standing up for our values like never before. From the renewed activism of our citizens, to the record number of American women just elected to Congress, to the teenagers united in common cause to demand gun safety reforms. The American people continue to be the greatest ambassadors of our nation's character, reminding us of the sheer power of an informed democratic society living in freedom and without fear. We must vigorously champion our values and defend the democratic nodes that have empowered the American people to bend the arc of history towards progress for the past 200 years. When we champion these values, they echo far beyond our borders. That is the story of our democracy. That is the power of our example. And in the absence of a president willing to champion our democratic values, that is why we small D Democrats still have a fighting chance. Thank you very much for joining us and for listening. Thanks so much, Senator, for a really powerful and eloquent case for the power of alliances, of ideas, on a very complicated international landscape. Senator Menendez has been called back to the Hill for a vote, and so we're only going to have time for a question or two at the outset. So let me start off by just picking up on one of the points you made earlier on your mark, Senator, about our own hemisphere, which you've devoted a lot of attention to over the years and which doesn't always get the attention it deserves, administration to administration. How concerned are you by the recent decision to cut off assistance to three central American states and the kind of general arc of our policy in the Western Hemisphere these days? Well, I think it's fundamentally dramatically a huge mistake to cut our assistance to the Northern Triangle countries. Vice President Pence was there only six months ago. He was extolling the virtues of trying to get to the root causes of why people flee in Central America. And so the efforts that we have in terms of institution building, rule of law, systems of justice, police reform, economic development, these are all the core elements that we need to stop the cause versus just treat the symptom. And I just think it is incredibly foolish. If the president wants to stop the migration, why do people leave Central America? They flee because it's either stay or die or flee and have a chance at living. Or if I stay, I see my daughter raped or I see my son forcibly put into a gang. If those are my challenges and my choices, I'm going to flee and take a shot. And so dealing with those issues are so critical. And I think it's so myopic and just part of the president's visceral reactions that has no substance strategically or otherwise in terms of the ultimate goal. And in the broader hemisphere, we were on a march towards democracies and strengthening institutions. We are on a backslide in the hemisphere. Venezuela, of course, is the one that gets the most attention. But we see it as well in Nicaragua and other places. And we see we're under the guise of trying to change constitution, so now you can elect yourself for, you know, ever. And that's happening not only in the hemisphere, many parts of the world. And so we need a more vigorous engagement in the hemisphere because it's in our own national interest, not just as a good neighbor, but whether it's flows of drugs, flows of people, economic opportunities, new markets to be had. This is a critical part of our national engagement. And there's one that's always taken the backseat, really, regardless of this administration or others. It hasn't been the forefront because other things have drawn our time and attention, obviously. But it's critical for us. And so I hope that I'm proud that we're working with Senator Rubio and others to try to invigorate our policy in the hemisphere.  We seem to be having nervous breakdowns on both sides of the Atlantic right now with Brexit and lots of challenges to the European Union, as well as our own political predicament here, too. I know we were both at the Munich Security Conference five or six weeks ago. How concerned are you that lots of our friends in Europe seem to see the growing fissures in the transatlantic relationship as structural? In other words, not just a function of President Trump, but they worry that the kind of broader American attitude toward Europe is beginning to fray a little bit, too. Well, Ambassador, I think that the congressional delegation that was there was the largest ever in the Munich Security Conference history, which I think sent a very strong message, goes to one of the points I made about that the Congress has a role as well in this context. And I think it provided a reassuring element to our European allies. But they're anxious. First of all, whatever institutional structural challenges there are, they are exacerbated by the president's policies. They're exacerbated by language. Words, as you know as a diplomat, have consequences. That means people make calculations or make bad calculations based upon what they hear. And so that and your actions are incredibly important. So it's fine to ask our allies to pay more as part of NATO, as part of their obligations. No one disputes that. But how that is done, in what way it is done, and how you assure that Article 5 is a rock-solid compromise, is incredibly important. How you look at institutions and build them, you know, they were great institutions at the end of the war. And they have served us very well for the better parts of three quarters of a century in peace, stability, and prosperity. But they have to be revised for a new day. So NATO has now different challenges than it ever had. It has a revengeous Russia, but it also has cyber attacks as a possibility, irregular forces as a possibility. How do you deal with those issues? How do you deal with the incredible flow of refugees that has created a rise in Europe by certain elements of the far right as a result of the response to that? So if the World Bank was supposed to be our global development fund, is it structurally the way it needs to be to be the global development entity that can bring us together? Because we can, when we join Europe, the United States, and other countries, we can create a development counter to the Belt and Road Initiative in a way that follows rules-based orders, ensures the greatest use of the rule of law, the sanctity of contracts, the transparency of actions. So do we need a new global fund or do we need to take the World Bank and reconfigure it? Do we need, for example, is there not a way to create an international consortium that creates the 5G technology that we need to compete against China with? Because if you tell everybody, and I agree it is a security challenge, but you have no alternative, then you not only need to confront China, you need to compete with China at the end of the day. And so whether we incentivize that domestically or as part of an international consortium, we should be taking our transatlantic alliance and not in a tariff war, but in joining together at the World Trade Organization with the European Union, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and others. And China should be the outlier for its malign trade practices, its forced technology transfer, its violation of intellectual property rights. We were on the verge of doing that when the administration opted for a policy of tariffs versus on a multilateral effect of challenging China with the WTO. So some of these institutions, yes, need to be brought up so that we can meet our challenges into the 21st century. But some of it is that we need to just internationalize our efforts and we find common ground. And we find common ground generally speaking with those countries that share our values. Those are the deepest, whether they share our values on democracy, whether they share our values on open economies, whether they share our values in general terms of the liberal order. And I think strengthening those so that they can deliver for people, both here at home and across the globe, is a critical way to forge our national security and our interests in the days ahead. Losander, thanks so much again for the clarity and power of your remarks today for reminding all of us of the hugely important role that you and the rest of the Congress can continue to play. And thank you all very much for coming. Please join me in thanking some of you.


This video is brought to you by CuriosityStream. If you sign up to CuriosityStream with the link in the description you'll also get access to Nebula where you can watch this series in its entirety. According to legend when Henry Ford first released his Model T car he told customers you can have it in any color you like as long as it's black. Decades later Roger Waters came about that same joke by way of a merchant who sold wares out of the back of his van in Cambridge. The merchant would offer up sets of china saying you can have them all any color you like. They're all blue. In an interview with Phil Rose Roger Waters described what that sentiment meant to him. It denotes offering a choice when there is none and it's also interesting that in the phrase any color you like they're all blue. I don't know why but in my mind it's always they're all blue which if you think about it relates very much to light and dark, sun and moon, good and evil. You make your choice, but it's always blue.  In the entire history of mankind never have so many people had the freedom to choose where they live, what they eat, how they dress, what media they consume. But still so much of our lives are out of control. We have no say in the place we're born and raised or the class we're born into. We have no say in the color of our skin or in the people we love and we have no say in everything that goes on around us. Pandemics and natural disasters, wars and economic recessions can and do wreak havoc in our lives at any given time. So in the modern age though it may feel like we have a whole spectrum of color to choose. In the end they're all blue. And that illusion of choice is the core theme of any color you like. And given that the song is an instrumental, understanding its title is key to understanding the role it plays on the album. Though David Gilmore claimed that any color you like has little impact on the wider narrative of the album, water said it still plays into that scope. To understand how any color you like slots in, I think it's important to look at the track sequencing of Dark Side of the Moon. The album was created not as a collection of songs, but instead as a cohesive unit. When viewed through this lens you can see the role that any color you like plays in the musical flow of the album. It serves to transition us from the discussions of modern life to the revelation of what it'll do to the human mind. But even as any color you like prepares us for the end of the album, it also looks back on where we've come. The music of any color you like is built around the same rhythm as breathe. This marks the third appearance of the album after the reprise at the end of time. In a lot of ways this rhythm is the beating heart at the center of Dark Side of the Moon. Whenever we venture too far away, this rhythm returns to bring us home. It's a reminder of where we came from in the album, but also where we came from in life. The first time the rhythm appears it's breathe, a song about birth and childhood. Then we hear it again at the end of time as we return home to die. In its final iteration the rhythm has shifted slightly, it's played a bit faster with some more bounce and the key has changed. There's a kind of joy and freedom to any color you like. In an album so meticulously planned, it's freeing to hear Pink Floyd let loose and tear out an impulsive jam. And perhaps more than any other song on the album, any color you like pairs perfectly with its iconic artwork. Dark Side of the Moon may have the single most iconic album cover in music history. It's elegant and simplistic, but it also seems to hint at a profound mystery. The artwork was designed by Hypnosis, a creative house led by Storm Thorgeson and Aubrey Powell. Hypnosis were good friends with Pink Floyd and are responsible for the look of almost all of the band's discography. In the case of Dark Side of the Moon they were given simple directions by Richard Wright. Do something clean, elegant and graphic. They came up with a few concepts including one that featured the Silver Surfer, but then Thorgeson found a picture of a prism refracting light. It reminded him of the laser light shows that had become a key part of Pink Floyd's performances. But there was a deeper meaning too as Thorgeson explained to the Rolling Stone. I think the triangle, which is a symbol of thought and ambition, was very much a subject of Roger's lyrics. So the triangle was a very useful icon to deploy. This triangle motif was repeated throughout the entirety of the album's packaging. Inside of the album Hypnosis put inserts including stickers and an infrared photograph of the pyramids of Giza taken by Thorgeson himself. Some of the album artwork was also built around suggestions by the band. It was Roger Waters who suggested the prism be flipped and continued across the gatefold. He also suggested the inside artwork, the peaks of a heart monitor graph. When taken as a whole, the packaging of Dark Side of the Moon reflects the themes of the album and it also captures the dark and mystifying mood of the music. When it comes to any color you like, the cover plays right into the moral of the title. Because at the end of the day, the modern age has given us myriad colors to choose from, myriad paths to walk down. But in the end, all paths lead to the same inevitable destination. And in the end, all colors are really just different parts of the same light. And as well as exploring the illusion of choice, any color you like functions as a very important transition. We've looked at some of the major forces in modern life. And in the final two songs of the album, we'll explore what these forces will do to the human mind. This video and the entire Dark Side of the Moon project were only made possible because of Nebula. Nebula is a streaming platform created by and for independent content creators. It's a place for us to experiment and try things that we might not have been able to do within the constraints of YouTube. For me, that means longer form pieces like this and my Led Zeppelin's Epic series. It's no exaggeration to say that the video you just watched would not exist without Nebula. Creating for YouTube alone, I simply wouldn't have had the time and resources to make a longer form project like this. If you want to watch the rest of this project or if you want to help support future projects, the best way to get Nebula is by signing up with CuriosityStream. While Nebula is the place to go for indie content, CuriosityStream is the best place online to stream professionally made documentaries. With thousands of documentaries on dozens of topics, I'm sure you'll be able to find something that interests you. Personally, I've been watching Behind the Artist, a series looking at some of the greatest visual artists of all time, including Van Gogh, Picasso, and Lichtenstein.  If you want to get started today, you can get 26% off an annual subscription by going to CuriosityStream.com. Between CuriosityStream's documentaries and new Nebula originals from an ever-growing list of creators, signing up with that link will give you more educational content than you'll know what to do with. And of course, following the link in the description is a big help to my channel, and it goes a long way towards making sure that I can do a new series in the future. Thank you guys so much for watching, and for those who have already signed up to Nebula, you guys are amazing, and you made this possible.


Felly, rydw i ddweud y cyfnodau cymaint, ac y cwestiwn nrwm 1—Clea Baker, please. Thank you. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with Transport Scotland regarding the Levenmouth rail project. Cabinet Secretary. Transport Scotland officials have met regularly with Fife council officers and the appointed consultants at Peter Brett's Associates during the course of the Levenmouth sustainable transport study. The Levenmouth rail link is one of the options being considered as part of that study. The most recent meeting took place on 12 September. Can I thank the cabinet secretary for that response and can I also welcome him to his new role? The cabinet secretary will hopefully be aware of the very active Levenmouth rail campaign. Levenmouth is the largest conurbation in Scotland that does not have a rail line and is an area with below average car ownership. The reintroduction of a rail service would offer passengers as well as freight and would bring huge economic, educational, social and cultural opportunities for the area that is in need of investment. The campaign for the rail links reintroduction has the support of Fife council, as the cabinet secretary recognises, and politicians from across all parties who are convinced that it should be a priority investment for the Government. Will the cabinet secretary agree to meet with me and other interested MSPs to discuss the future of the project at the earliest opportunity and to understand the cross-party consensus that are behind the plans? I am more unhappy if the cabinet secretary wants to answer the questions this afternoon, so she chooses to do it. Is that a yes? I am very aware of the active campaign from the Levenmouth group who are keen to see the line re-opened. The member will be aware of the concern of work that has already been taken forward by Transport Scotland Fife Council and working with the campaign group in looking at the issue. I recognise the importance that can have to communities such as Levenmouth and the benefits that can potentially come from the re-opening of the line. It is important that we make sure that all of the stakeholders who have a part to play in looking at the issue are working collectively together. That is Transport Scotland Fife Council and other parties who have an interest in playing that. I have been encouraged by the way in which that has been taken forward to date. I am also very conscious of the work that Fife Council is doing with Transport Scotland that they are keen to see how further progress can be made with the matter. On the point that the member made regarding whether I would be willing to meet with herself and other MSPs, I am more than happy to look at doing that at some point. It is important that the existing work that has been carried out at the present moment is concluded so that we can look at it on the basis of where we go next and what the next steps would be. However, I have been encouraged by the way in which the work has been taken forward to date. I am more than happy to discuss that with other colleagues in Parliament and how we can make further progress with the matter. I have another invitation for the cabinet secretary. I would like to invite him to meet with me in Leven so that he can see for himself the benefits of reinstating the rail link to the town. It has been a while since I have been in Leven, so I will have to take up that offer from Jenny Goldruth. I recognise the interest that she has in the matter as well, but I would like to encourage all MSPs who have a collective interest in the matter to work in a co-operative fashion. I will certainly do what I can in making sure that we continue to make progress with that particular proposal. Of course, it is important that it goes through the proper due process in making decisions about those matters. Any decision for investment into the opening of a line or investment into a line has to be based on evidence that would justify that as being the most appropriate way in which to help to improve transport connectivity in that particular area. That is the case for railways, roads and other major transport investments. However, I am more than happy to meet with Jenny Goldruth in her constituency and to discuss the matter in further detail with other MSPs at a later date. To ask the Scottish Government what percentage of households in the Stirling constituency have faster broadband connectivity? Based on figures provided by independent broadband analysts, I think broadband, 95.1 per cent of all premises in the Stirling constituency area are now able to access fibre broadband and 89.1 per cent are able to access superfast speeds of 30 megabits per second and above. When deployments through the digital Scotland superfast broadband programme began in January 2014, just 59.8 per cent of premises were able to access fibre and 57.7 per cent are speeds of 30 megabits per second and above. The latest assured figures show that over 16,200 premises in the Stirling constituency now have access to fibre broadband as a direct result of the programme and more than 14,000 of those are speeds of 24 megabits per second and above. Is he aware that there is still a significant number of my constituents in the Stirling constituency who do not have yet access to the fast broadband? While I am delighted that the Scottish Government will soon be letting the contract for R100 to ensure 100 per cent of coverage for faster broadband by the end of 2021, I ask the minister if he is aware that the communities of Crenlaric and Tindrum were potentially within scope in regard to the current contract for which BT is responsible. In that regard, therefore, can he update me on what the prospects for the communities of Crenlaric and Tindrum are of being connected to faster broadband in the near future? As he is aware that the Scottish Government has responded to the failure, if you like, of the UK market approach that has been taken by UK ministers, and I stepped in in the intervention that he described in terms of our 100 programme, and the Superfast programme under the DSSB or Digital Scotland's Superfast Broadband programme. We have intervened for the reasons of the concern about the impact on economic development in communities such as Crenlaric, which Mr Crawford describes. I understand that officials within the DSSB team recently provided an update to Strathffillan Community Council on broadband in Crenlaric, in which he stated that planners continued to work in finding a solution that would allow Strathffillan to be covered under the DSSB programme, but I am, of course, happy to correspond with Mr Crawford in further detail on that. To ask the Scottish Government what action it plans to improve the trunk road network in south Scotland region. Cabinet secretary. The contract for the construction of the £30 million mobile bypass is expected to be awarded by the end of this year. When completed, the project will improve road safety and journey time reliability along the A77, including to the port at Cairn Rhine. Looking to the future, Transport Scotland recently published a draft Borders Transport Corridor study report, which contained a number of recommendations for improvements to the trunk road network in the region. In the west, Transport Scotland is progressing at the south west Scotland transport study, with the stakeholder engagement phase launched earlier today. The emerging outcomes from both studies will provide important input to the forthcoming strategic transport project review. Joe McAlpine I very much welcome this news. I wonder if the Scottish Government could say how much those contracts are worth, how many jobs does it see as supporting through such contracts, and can the cabinet secretary confirm what benefits will be reaped by local firms? The construction of the five kilometres mobile bypass is estimated to be in the region of around £30 million. That will benefit the local community, as it will provide opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises to bid for subcontractor roles. There are provisions for at least four vocational and seven professional onsite-based training opportunities, and at its peak it is estimated that the project will employ up to 165 people. That will, no doubt, bring benefits to the local economy. I have no doubt that local contractors will be keen to take up some of the subcontractor roles that come about through the contract. Oliver Mundell I am pleased that Mabbles is finally moving forward. Speaking of two other long-delayed projects that have seen slow progress, can the cabinet secretary tell me when the A76 will be fully reopened and when the Scottish Government will finally get round to investing in the A75? The first thing to say is that it is wrong to suggest that the Scottish Government has not invested in the A75. It has an extensive amount of funding over a considerable period of time, in order to deal with pinch points in other areas of safety, along with maintenance and maintaining the line over an extended period of years. We will continue to make sure that we make the necessary investments. As I mentioned, we are undertaking the south-west study, which will look at the wider issues that need to be addressed. Some of that will include the A75 and the A77 and the other transport networks around that area, and the transport network as a whole, and that will feed into the strategic approach that we take to transport investment. Unlike the many years of conservative rule in this country, we are making the real investment into Scottish roads, including the A75. Given that the economic challenge is facing the south of Scotland, the nationally strategically important of the ferry terminal at Cairnryan, and what has been a chronic lack of investment in the A75, A76 and A77, surely the cabinet secretary accepts that the south of Scotland needs a far bigger share of investment in its trunk road network than it has had in the past few years. The cabinet secretary will be well aware that there is a significant amount of investment into the A75 and the A77 as part of the maintenance contract and where it is appropriate for upgrades to be carried out. Actually, there is some work that has been taken place over recent times because of the restrictions that have been placed on. The carriageway replacement work has been carried out at the present moment, but the member is also aware that we have commissioned the south-west Scotland transport study, the public consultation element of which started today. That is the first phase of that public engagement. There will be further phases where there will be working groups that will be established to engage with local stakeholders around what would be the most effective way not to improve connectivity and transport links to the south-west of Scotland. That study will allow us to make decisions about what the most appropriate action would be in the future to meet the connectivity issues that they have in the south-west of Scotland and where the necessary investments will be required. That will then sit within the strategic transport project review. The member recognises that it is important that we take that approach in order to have a wider look at how we can make sure that the investments that we make in areas such as the south-west are addressing what the issues are and that they are after adding value and improvement to connectivity in those areas alongside the other proposals that we have for transport and connectivity improvements across the country. Question 4, Bob Doris. Government-how proposals and its transport bill aim to support the improved planning and delivery of social desirable bus routes. The transport bill provides local authorities with a range of tools to influence and improve bus services in their area, ensuring that there are sustainable bus networks across Scotland. That includes options to pursue partnership working, local franchising or running their own buses in certain circumstances. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The summer students in my constituency have no easy way of commuting to Cleveland secondary school in Kelvindale and the area poorly served by bus. Although I hope to secure a solution, the current system where SPT tenders a social desirable bus route is costly, of limited value and often restrictive, does the cabinet secretary agree with me that a co-production model for such bus routes is subsidised or otherwise between communities, councils and bus companies, where a strategic approach can be taken to socially desirable bus routes, would be far preferable. What can the transport bill do to address that key issue? Partnerships at the very centre of what we want to achieve with our proposals in improving bus services in Scotland are a new model for local transport authorities to work with bus operators to help to revitalise services as part of the work that we are taking forward. That is why we are also committed to promoting positive changes and partnership working to improve bus services. The best way for that to happen is by getting the right partners together. For example, Bob Doris's suggestion of the need to take those matters forward in a way that is much more based on co-production. Engagement in partnership is essential to that, making sure that bus passengers are at the centre of how we design and deliver bus services going forward, and that we reflect the needs of local communities, including the communities within Bob Doris's constituency. I have raised with the cabinet secretary's predecessor concerns about cuts to the bus services from Gilsby to Inverness. Will the transport bill recognise that some of those socially desirable and important bus routes serve communities beyond the place that they are in, and that it would be crucial that, in this instance, Orkney is fully involved in any discussions about how the vital bus route connection to the ferry services is taken forward? As a member will be aware, we as a Government invest some £250 million a year in bus services in Scotland through a variety of different channels, part of which is to support local authorities where necessary circumstances to provide subsidy for particular routes. That will continue to be the case going forward. Of course, it is for local authorities to make a determination and a decision on where they wish to take such action. The additional benefits that we provide within the transport bill provide additional methods where local authorities and other partners can consider taking action, where they believe that it is socially desirable and necessary for a bus service to be made available, where there is no commercial operator in place at the present moment. Along with the investment that we are making and the additional provisions that we are providing within the bill for additional options to be available to local communities and to local authorities, that will provide more opportunities for actions to be taken at a local level as and when that is necessary. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Transport Scotland, Network Rail and ScotRail regarding the East Kilbride to Glasgow rail line. The Scottish Government has prioritised the East Kilbride and Barhead routes for enhancements as part of the CP6 project funding. The first part of the improvement is to run longer trains with more seats for passengers along both routes. What is necessary to deliver this is being pursued urgently, and we expect to make a positive announcement soon. Transport Scotland, Network Rail and ScotRail are working closely to develop plans that will deliver better resilience, more capacity, reduce emissions and major passenger benefits over the coming years. Detailed work has already commenced to assess the most economic means of delivering those outcomes. I thank the cabinet secretary very much for that response, but I also ask him in his meetings with the ScotRail Alliance and Transport Scotland to stress the inadequacy of the current single track line and the importance of upgrading for such a commuter line to help the Government's aspirations to low emissions and carbon reduction. The East Kilbride line as a commuter corridor for Glasgow is absolutely crucial. I recognise the concerns that the member has raised on behalf of her constituents previously with me in recent times. Part of the purpose for which we are carrying out the work that has been taken forward just now is to look at how we can improve resilience and capacity on the existing network, particularly on the East Kilbride and Barhead lines, which would, with the objective of providing more seats and greater reliability on those services. As part of the control period 6 work that has been taken forward, we are looking at the existing infrastructure arrangements that we have in place and where those strategic investments can be made in order to help to support greater use of our railways, greater resilience with them and reliability for them alongside that, making sure that we provide them as a positive alternative to people driving into town centres such as from East Kilbride into Glasgow. The points that the member has made are all points that are certainly not lost on me and are points that are being considered as part of the work that has been taken forward at the present moment. Question 6, Gordon MacDonald. To ask the Scottish Government what its programme for government means for the long-term level of infrastructure spending in Edinburgh and across Scotland. Cabinet Secretary. Our programme for government committed to increasing infrastructure spend by around 1 per cent of GDP. That will mean that annual investment in our hospitals, schools, houses, transport, low-carbon technology and digital connections will be around £1.5 billion higher by 2025-26 than 20-29-20. That national mission will bring a level of investment in our vital economic and social infrastructure that will protect and create jobs in the short-term and support growth and productivity in the long-term. The city of Edinburgh will continue to benefit from investment across a range of its infrastructure, including key projects such as the St James's Quarter and the Edinburgh and South East Scotland city region deal. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The commitment to infrastructure is to be £1.5 billion per year higher by 2025-26, means support for faster broadband, schools and improved transport in my constituency. It is practical benefits for my constituents. Will the cabinet secretary agree that, in such times of Tory-induced uncertainty, such ambitious plans help to ensure investments that will benefit future generations? I agree with the sentiments of the member's point. The ambitions that we have set out as part of our national infrastructure mission is to ensure that we continue to deliver the major infrastructure investment that Scotland needs for the future by increasing our investment in this area. It puts Scotland much more in line with other developed countries in the level of investment that is necessary to ensure that we have a modern fit-for-purpose infrastructure. The programme that we have set out demonstrates the ambition that the SNP Government has for making sure that we deliver that for Scotland in the years ahead. I apologise to the four members that I did not manage to reach, notwithstanding my mantra that if we have shorter supplementaries and shorter answers, everyone gets in, so perhaps that can be taken as they say on board. I now turn to questions on justice and law officers. Question 1, Alexander Stewart, please. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to recent figures from the Scottish Prison Service showing record levels of disorder, drug-taking and fire-raising in prisons. I should say that prison officers have the right to work in their workplace, just as all of us do, free from assault. We recognise the importance of providing a safe and secure environment for those in custody as well as, of course, the men and women who work in our prisons. Our prisons are dealing with increasingly complex populations, including an increase in serious and organised crime groups, and those under the influence of unknown substances who all present an increased risk of disorder. In relation to the recent statistics that have been published, a national strategic risk and threat group has been established by the Scottish Prison Service in response to increasing levels of violence against those in its care or indeed against staff in our prisons. Just to put it as a note of context, compared with England and Wales, Scotland's response to disorder in our prisons does perform favourably. The latest figure from England and Wales shows that rates of assault on staff are 223 per cent higher in England and Wales at 84 per 1,000 prisoners compared to 26 per 1,000 in Scotland. I suspect that I speak for everybody in the chamber when I say that that is 26 per 1,000 too many. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Official figures show that 37,518 punishments were given to inmates in 2017-18. That is a rise of over 9,000 since the SNP came to power. So what urgent measures is the cabinet secretary now putting in place to combat the growing disorder within our prisons? Can I just refer to my previous answer, which is that the Scottish Prison Service has taken immediate action to establish a national strategic risk and threat group? When I spoke to Colin McConnell and indeed Phil Fairlie from the Prison Officers Association, both of them told me that there was complex reasons and some of those I referred to in my first answer. It should also be said of the 448 separate incidents involving violence against staff over the last two years. 40 per cent of those were perpetrated by individuals who had identified mental health issues, so that is much more complex than we have time to answer in this question. Alexander Stewart's question gives me the opportunity to raise the HMIP report, which he would have seen from David Strang today. He certainly raised some challenges for our prison estate but generally spoke in very positive terms. David Strang directly said that we should never take for granted the good order that is maintained in Scotland's prison and that they are in a general stable and secure environment. I say that in stark contrast to Peter Clarke, the chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales, in his annual report in July, which said that some of the most disturbing prison conditions that we have ever seen are conditions that have no place in the advanced nation in the 21st century. In this, my third annual report is HM, chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales, violence, drugs, suicide and self-harm, squalor and poor access to education are again prominent themes. That contrast is there, but we should never and can never and we won't be complacent. I associate the remarks around prison officers who do fantastic work. New psychoactive substances are a real and growing problem in our prisons. Given that they are so hard to detect, what support is the Scottish Government providing the SPA to develop new techniques and technologies to detect psychoactive substances coming into our prisons? I will ask SPS to be able to give a more detailed answer on the work that they are doing to the member in written form. That is exactly the type of issue that the newly established national strategic risk and threat group will look into. As I mentioned in my conversations with the SPA and the POA, the unknown substances were certainly one of the factors that we are giving them cause for a land, but I will get a written response from SPS Direct in terms of some of the measures that they are taking to combat that issue. To ask the Scottish Government how current reconviction rates compare with 2006-07. Reconviction rates in Scotland are now at a 19-year low and have reduced to 27 per cent, compared to 32 per cent in 2006-07. That means that over the last 10 years, there has been a shift from around one in three offenders being reconvicted to around one in four. The average number of reconvictions per offender is also at its lowest level for 19 years and is 22 per cent lower than it was in 2006-07. The figures that were published earlier this month also show that individuals released from a custodial sentence of 12 months or less are reconvicted nearly twice as often as those who receive a community payback order. We continue to work to create a just, safe and resilient Scotland, and those figures reinforce the value of an evidence-led collaborative approach to reduce the use of short-term imprisonment, prevent re-offending and promote rehabilitation. Could the cabinet secretary outline what are the factors employed that have caused the dramatic and welcome outcome? There will be many of them, but the Government's focus on rehabilitation and understanding that community payback orders and community justice are certainly for the rehabilitation element and for rehabilitation pay dividends. We will continue to invest heavily in community justice that we have done. We have allocated around £100 million per annum to local authorities to deliver community sentences and reduce re-offending. Parties across the chamber say that we should never look at victims' rights, which we are going to strengthen and continue to strengthen at the heart of our justice system. The rehabilitation of offenders is to conflict narratives or measures. They are not, they are two sides of the same coin. I hope that everybody will look at the data and see where we have had success in reducing reconvictions and re-offending, and hopefully we can get a parliamentary consensus around the way forward, which includes, for example, presumption against short sentences of 12 months or more. Liam Kerr has not agreed with me that, given that the reconviction rate has fallen less than five percentage points over the past 18 years and is still a third higher than in Northern Ireland, there is simply no room for complacency. Of course I would agree with his assessment that there is no room for complacency. I hope that I am not demonstrating any of that complacency. I am suggesting that we look at the justice analytics, the data and the empirical evidence in front of us and what I would say genuinely to Liam Kerr having spoken to him on a number of occasions now about this agenda. I think that it is so, so important that whatever we do moving forward, whether it is in government or indeed opposition measures, we do so looking at the data of what works and hopefully we can build a parliamentary consensus, because there is an undeniable and unrefusible evidence that exists, that community payback orders, community sentences certainly helped with tackling re-offending much better than short time prison sentences. When it comes to presumption against short sentences of 12 months or less, I would hope that the Conservative benches will give the support to that measure. To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken to ensure that rape victims are given support throughout the investigation process and after the sentencing of the attacker. Rape and sexual assault are serious crimes and anyone who has been affected should feel able to report those to the police and know that they will be supported through the justice process. In 2015-18, the Scottish Government provided an additional £1.85 million to support the project. In 2018, we agreed an additional £1.7 million for the next two years to ensure that local rape crisis centres can continue to provide direct support to women who are engaged with the criminal justice system. In the recent PFG, we confirmed that a further £1.5 million over three years has been awarded through the equality's budget to rape crisis Scotland to speed up access to other support such as counselling. The funding begins in October, so it can start to make a difference in the not too distant future. An additional £1.1 million of additional funding has also been provided in the current year to the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service and Court Service to improve how sexual offences cases are handled and improve communication with victims. Finally, through the work of the chief medical officer's task force, we are also improving care pathways. For people who require forensic medical examination, we published national standards in December 2017, which are underpinned by £2.25 million of Scottish Government funding. Gillian Martin, I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Does he agree with me that the continuity of police personnel is vital in such cases and that all victims, especially younger women, who might be over 16, may be still in school and still very young, should be given the option to be accompanied by another adult through police interviews? I ask because, in some cases, my constituency has not always been the case. I would like to perhaps talk afterwards to Gillian Martin about the specific experiences of that individual case, because, certainly from all the partners that I have spoken to involved in the criminal justice system, from the moment that a terrible incident like this happens, a terrible crime like this happens, right from there, to investigations, post-a-trial sentencing, release of the perpetrator. Throughout the entire process, I have identified where there are potential gaps in the early stage. Clearly, for the most vulnerable witnesses and victims, we have made significant progress. If there are gaps there, I am keen that we work collaboratively with all the justice partners involved to ensure that we plug those gaps as best as possible. However, I would be happy to speak to Gillian Martin about the individual case, just to get a little bit more information to understand and inform my thinking moving forward. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will commit to an independent review of football policing. There are around 5 million supporters at football matches every year in Scotland. The vast majority of football fans in Scotland are a credit to their teams and only a small number of incidents in comparison to total numbers at attending games. Operational policing is entirely a matter for Police Scotland. Police Scotland keeps the policing of football matches under constant review and the tactics and deployments that are used will vary depending on the circumstances and the risks associated with each match. Public safety is paramount, and the Scottish Government supports Police Scotland to take appropriate and proportionate action in response to any situation in which it is considered that any criminality may arise. There is a general framework for Police Scotland's approach to football policing, and Police Scotland works closely with clubs to develop policing plans. Those arrangements are working well, and, in my view, there is no need for an independent review. James Kelly? As a football supporter, the cabinet secretary will be aware that, so far this season, we have had police filming fans at a low-level friendly. Serious questions about crowd management at Celtic Rangers Games and reports in the Herald and Sunday of police officers approaching fans and asking them to ask their paid informants. There is widespread concern among football fans about those instances. Does the cabinet secretary accept that football supporters have the right to be respected and to support their team and that an independent review of policing at football would progress that respect among both parties? Can I take each of the points in turn? Before I do that, I agree that football fans and any sports fans getting about their business should be allowed to do so and enjoy their leisurely activity. My belief is that they are very much without police involvement. The vast majority of football fans that attend a football match on a Saturday and Sunday or, indeed, a European game throughout the week will never have a police interaction or, if they do, it will be an absolute minimal police interaction. The vast majority of football fans go about and get to watch their team play and do not have an interaction with the police. Let me take each of the points in turn that he mentioned. I disagree with his premise. I do not think that there is widespread concern. I do not know the last time that James Kelly went to a football match, but when I did, certainly nobody approached me about the fact that they had major concerns in and around football. I do not think that there is widespread at all. He described filming of fans at his words as, quote-unquote, a low-level friendly. Is it a suggestion that there would not be sectarian chanting just because a game happens to be a low-level friendly? Police Scotland gave evidence to the Justice Committee, to this Parliament, to say that filming of football fans was helpful for them to gather evidence when there was sectarian singing. That, again, is an operational matter for them, so that is the reason for that. When it came to the Celtic Rangers match and some of the issues around there, I believe that Celtic are carrying an independent review and have got a consultant on board for that. Police Scotland have also said that they will review their measures for the incident that took place. I also have concerns about that. On his last point of informants, what I would say is that he is looking at the Sunday Herald article, which he quoted, just to quote one of the fans who obviously was not going by his own name, but one of the fans said that the police came to his door. I am sorry. I know how important it is. I know when I have let you have a long go at it, and I have been—forgive me if you would sit down for a minute. I appreciate that many are new to their positions on the front bench. I am getting very long answers, and I am not getting through many questions, very few supplementaries, so you can be very brief now, please. It is the third point that was raised. I was asked effectively three or four questions, Presiding Officer, so I am going through each of them. The quote from the football fan was, The police were there wanting to know if there was going to be any organised fights, or if there was going to be groups of people travelling to certain places. If I knew that information, could I share it? That is hardly heavy-handed policing tactics. When it comes to using human informants, that is regulated by IPCO. If the member has any concerns, of course, he can raise them directly with the independent investigatory powers commissioner's office. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in response to the reported increase in incidents of antisocial behaviour. The evidence points towards a long-term and sustained reduction in antisocial behaviour. The Scottish Crime and Justice Survey showed in 2008-09 that 46 per cent of adults felt people behaved in an antisocial manner in their area, but by 2016-17, that had fallen to 29 per cent. More adults than ever before feel safe walking alone after dark in their local area, which I am sure is something that the member will welcome. It is, of course, very important that people feel safe in their communities and, for that reason, we are taking forward a number of actions that are contributing to the downward trend and will continue it, including refreshing our guidance to police and local authorities, supporting the extension of our whole systems approach to tackle youth offending and ensuring that initiatives such as cashback are focused on the communities that are hit by crime and antisocial behaviour. I thank the minister for that answer and I welcome where antisocial behaviour has reduced, but, according to Police Scotland management information figures in my parts of my region, like Murray, antisocial behaviour has increased significantly in Murray's case 25 per cent in a single year. With pressure on local authority budgets across Scotland, we have seen the number of community wardens cut in many council areas. Will the minister confirm whether she is monitoring the deployment of community wardens centrally and whether the police are actively responding to those changes in areas in which warden numbers have fallen? I will allow my officials to look into the issue of community wardens. The 2017-18 report suggests that it suggests a slight increase overall in antisocial behaviour. However, the report for this first quarter, which was published quite recently just in August, suggests that reports fell from 90,052 in April to June 2017 to 90,986 in April to June 2018. Therefore, looking at the figure overall, we can see that it indicates a long-term and sustained reduction in reports. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce the number of women being placed on remand. I thank Rona Mackay and all those who contributed to the justice committee's inquiry into the use of remand in Scotland, which was published shortly before summer recess and I responded to on 23 August. As the committee report acknowledged, issues impacting on the remand population go beyond justice and can result in disruption to individuals and families, which is comparable to a short custodial sentence. Decisions on each case are, of course, rightly a matter for the court to make within the overall legal framework provided by this Parliament, and remand is necessary in some cases. We are working very closely with partners across portfolios to help to ensure that the needs of the remand population are recognised that remand is only used where necessary and appropriate. That includes actions specific to women on remand, including providing additional funding of £1.5 million per annum for bail support services, specifically for women, and support for the shine mentoring service for women on remand. As confirmed in the programme for government, we will issue revised guidance and provide additional funding for supervised and supported bail, and the forthcoming debate on the justice committee's report will provide an opportunity to debate those issues in more detail. Rona Mackay Thank you for the answer. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that alternative methods to custody, such as holistic support and community sentences, should be offered to women, given that 75 per cent of women remanded do not go on to be sentenced? Knowing your want for brevity, Presiding Officer, I very much agree with Rona Mackay. The Government has certainly recognised that for many years. We are taking forward a number of measures as per Elish Angiolini's commission on women offenders. I can give the member a fuller response in writing to some of the measures that we are taking forward in that regard, but I absolutely agree with the premise of her question. Margaret Mitchell To us Scottish Government when it last met with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. I met with Jim Martin, the chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, on 21 August as part of a series of introductory meetings with a range of stakeholders, and Scottish Government officials have regular engagement with the SLCC to discuss legal services policy. Margaret Mitchell Thank you for that. Can the minister confirm who is Christianizes the work of the SLCC and holds him to account for its performance? Thank you, Ms Mitchell. It is obviously an independent commission. We are at the moment undertaking a review of the Regulation of Legal Services, and the work of the commission will and complaints handling in particular will be looked at during that. We are considering the regulatory framework across the whole piece. We would like to see how that will work in terms of promoting competition, innovation and also the public consumer interest. We are looking at all of this, and we are expecting the chair of the independent report to produce the report in the autumn. Margaret Mitchell Thank you. Concludes portfolio questions. I apologise for three members that I was unable to call for reasons I know you understand.


So one of the resources you have in your folder is a PDF that's got some extra examples of some complex circuits now there's three of them all shown on one page and We'll treat them individually, but I just want to give you a view of this So if for some reason you did want to print them out you can print out the three diagrams We'll handle the top one in a quick video The second one there's a solution key and that solution key goes step by step how you would reduce this entire circuit the third example We're going to treat again with a little quick video without actually doing any calculations on it So make sure you take a look at those individual resources


I don't know if this guy knows this, but I did go to Yamcha school for five years trying to get my doctorate. Oh That was six seventeen Oh, and I dropped it. How's it going everybody? Dato do it here with some more Dragon Ball fighters footage and this time we got some Android 17 going on I just took out Bardock from the last time and Slaps a man droid 17 in there Also, I did play a quite a few matches off-screen. That's why I have so much more BP Oh, wow, we this oh this tune goes hard. All right. Oh, and I'm loving the freezer color. All right, let's focus now interesting Oh poor choice on the barrier by me. That wasn't intentional by any means All right, Yamcha. Oh, baby the classic mix-up You know, I love to see it Okay, okay nice vanish. Oh, you would have thought. Oh Wait, oh, I gotta get that Yamcha color the Halloween. Yamcha is sick. Yeah, I'm I'm desperately in either that Yamcha color All right, let's get this hard knockdown and mix them up. Okay, didn't expect him to hit me like that But this guy's really not doing too much defensively Just kind of sitting there, but that's don't don't get me wrong. I will definitely take the points But he did click that one button, so maybe that's the sign of things to come He's gonna get a bit more offensive. Oh I thought you see I saw the arm come out. I was like, oh you trying to hit me so I I did the counter immediately and Kind of paid the ultimate price because he was reflecting. All right, let's play a little defense.  We're probably dead here looking at the meter Wait a minute. Oh, never mind. Never mind. Never mind. Never mind. I I'm not too bad. Not too bad. We still have a lead. So let's not let's not panic or anything. Let's not oh You didn't see me cross under Oldest trick in the book as well.  That's killer, dude.  I appreciate that me. Thank you so much me all right, let's get full damage here and One more spirit ball to finish it off. Bop Bop. Oh, that might have killed me I don't know that might have killed normally and that would have been that would have been a little extra frisky No, really Stuck out my legs. I'm surprised. He didn't wolf fang fist From one Yasha player to another that just seemed like God.  Let's go. Oh Okay guard cancel. I agree. Oh, wow. I he is just letting me in dude Okay, all right, we're gonna make a read here the read was incorrect. I Thought he was gonna instantly spark my spark would catch it and I'd be free to go but Unfortunately, that's not what happened. So we're gonna be tasting a bit of the corner here Okay, just frau overhead This guy's not wolf fang fisting at all and it's actually mixing me up The the oh, okay. No sliding. That was a light Okay. All right, so it looks like we are going to take the win on this one Hopefully anyway. All right, let's see if we can't hit this. Oh, I think I actually would have hit it What what was he do it? Did he think that was a wolf fang fist? Or maybe he was trying to guard cancel and because I accidentally you put it a Kamehameha Because Yamcha takes seven days to cock it back. He accidentally got hit because he was just walking towards me Okay, oh Don't even think about it Android 17 Okay, we can leave the corner now As awkward dude, I was kind of waiting for you to make a move Backdash on it. Oh my god. I keep forgetting. You can't instantly cancel into that Okay, that one didn't catch him again Mmm, I knew that was gonna take caught him the first time dude. It'll catch him the second time He's not adjusting to that very well There we go another dragon rush keep it going He's afraid of something dude. He's afraid of something Playtime's over. Oh, hmm. Who do we want in we want Goku take him out of the corner? All right, nice. So we're up a whole character again, but this time Android 17 is gonna take a little bit of a break. Oh Wow, we going corner we going coast to coast. Oh Yes, let me see in this left side, dude. Oh Yes, let me see you do it again Let me see you go back down Let me see you touch the ground and unfortunately we are gonna have to use Yamcha here Cuz Android 17 might not have gotten the kill and it would have started a cutscene So let's not even mess around with that. But man, this is like in like a queen's. Wow the raw down heavy. Oh unfortunate All right, he does go sliding. Yeah, I saw that one coming. I Don't know if this guy knows this but I did go to Yamcha school for five years trying to get my doctor Oh, that was six seventeen. Oh And I dropped it. I don't think you can hit that there.  Oh Yeah, I felt that one coming up.  Ah He got me with that one. That was just That was just good work, dude. I got it. I'll give it up. That was just good Damn, I was really hoping 17 would put in more work He's not low. He's not out of sparking yet. So nice tech. Nice tech. Mmm. Gotty. All right. That's two right That's two wins All right. All right. I'm feeling loosey-goosey dude. This is the point. This is the money making We're just we're just leveling up, dude Eight o'clock. I got to remember keep playing at eight o'clock Okay, not as optimal as this combo could have been but that's fine You're done for mbp 17 give him the look send him to bed All right, oh Nice super dash. I kind of knew it was coming for me eventually.  Oh Beautiful 17 come on. Oh, we're not dragon rushing. I knew you'd expect it. I Saw you learn last round. So I'm not busting that out ever again You gotta know I'm learning. Oh, I still love this Halloween color Damn it dropped.   I retract my previous statement Neo will fang fist dude. I was watching wow.  Whoa. I got that all wrong Yeah, boo versus Gohan is like some of the coolest stuff in all of Z for sure Like that entire like entrance was just classic line after classic line.  I need an interest saying so hot shot. You want to fight mazhin boo? All right enough talking enough talking. Why why did I start conversating the amount of neo Wolfgang fist? Neo Wolfgang fist. All right, we're sparking. Oh, what? That's a reset. That's big deeps We're just trying to get the burst damage in. Oh, what didn't even reach All right, we're gonna do a special special bonus round because this was a super short video And I spent the entire last half talking about how I watched TV earlier. So let's go This song is getting on my nerves now that it's repeated so many times. Oh we go See there's a setup for that, but I definitely just don't know it You got to get out of this corner before yoncha comes back dude Try this boom get him out. Okay. I didn't have enough energy there for it Up we go Down we go again Dragon rush Let me know if you can see if you know the lyrics feel free to sing along at this point Playtime's over. Ha look at the synergy. Look at this synergy Knocked down in the corner. He usually likes to click buttons, right? So we're just gonna go low Are we gonna get enough bar the answer may surprise you? The answer may surprise you down The answer to that question may surprise you coming up next on TLC Nice cross-up Goku and also excellent use of the 17 assist if I can play my own trombone for just a second here. Ah damn Yeah, it's true. I was definitely trying to get a perfect. Okay. You caught me.  What's that was street fighter not dragon ball?  I think I'm gonna I think that's gonna do it, right?  It's been a lot of fun I'm gonna go ahead and call it here. No, it was a bit of the shorter video, but it was a fun one Honestly, it was pretty much all fundamentals. We got to see some crazy 17 stuff. It's been great guys Thank you so much for watching as always. Let me know your favorite moment down in the comment section Was it the part where I talked about TV for five minutes? Let me know while you're down there if you like these videos and want to support the channel Make sure to hit the like button and subscribe. I'm Datou do you I'll see you in the next video You


Brent Taylor's Toyota 86, they were running very, very well indeed, they've had an off, they lost a lot of time, they've got a temporary exemption to get back to Park Fermi and so they're working madly, they've got 34 minutes to get back into Park Fermi to be re-included. As you've seen Fast and Furious work on car 54 and Brent Taylor has I think about one minute to get here, let's hope he does, they've worked pretty hard. All that hard work, he's finally made it just in the nick of time, what did you get in by about 30 seconds or a minute? Yeah, about what we needed to, as long as you're here on time. Okay mate, what happened? In the first stage we had a spin and I didn't back off as I should do, there was probably a bit much travel on the road and I was just a bit excited to be there. And a downhill tightening left-hander, same again, same way around whether or not it's the back end I'm not sure but we spun, got it a half spin and just dropped it into the water table and there was a big rock there and it broke its back arm, which was bad enough that we couldn't fix it but then to compound that is that our service crew couldn't get in so we ended up having to do a 160k loop around to be able to come back here today so we were to fix it and five minutes had we been able to get access to the materials, just one of those things about rallying.