Rwyth Davidson. Llyr Gruffydd, last week I asked the First Minister about the justice secretary's involvement in the decision to prevent the chief constable from returning to work. She said nine times that all Michael Matheson did was to ask questions of the Scottish Police Authority's decision. In evidence to this morning's Audit Committee, the former chair of the SPA revealed that Matheson's involvement went far beyond that. He said that in their private meeting, the justice secretary told him that the SPA had made a bad decision. Which version of events is true? First Minister. I have heard extracts of this morning's committee session, I haven't managed to listen to all of it, but I don't think that Ruth Davidson is correct in her characterisation of the evidence that was heard this morning. Andrew Flanagan said, for example, that the justice secretary did not request him to change his decision. What he did was ask questions about the steps that had been taken. He also expressly said that he was not directed by the justice secretary. As I said last week, there is a clear distinction here between the operational independence of the SPA and, of course, the police in matters that no justice secretary should intervene in, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the proper role of a justice secretary in making sure that due process is followed. Michael Matheson asked legitimate questions about the steps that had been taken leading up to the decision to ask the chief constable to return to work. For example, had Perk been asked whether or not his return to work would compromise the on-going investigation? Secondly, whether the senior command had been notified? We heard the acting chief constable say earlier in the week that that wasn't the case, and thirdly whether there had been plans put in place for the welfare of officers who had raised concerns. The reason, as I heard it this morning, Andrew Flanagan felt that he had no option but to change his decision was that he couldn't answer those questions about process. It is entirely legitimate. I think that the public would have expected the cabinet secretary to do what he did. I come back to the point that Ruth Davidson couldn't address last week. If the position of Ruth Davidson is that the justice secretary should not have asked those legitimate questions, is she saying that she thinks that the chief constable should have returned to work without any of those issues being properly explained? I am prepared to bet, Presiding Officer. If that had happened, Ruth Davidson would have been standing up in this chamber saying how outrageous that was. In low circumstances, she might actually have been right. The evidence that emerged this morning might be inconvenient for the First Minister, but she cannot pretend that it does not contradict her earlier answers, because the former SPA chair was asked this morning whether he felt that the cabinet secretary had made a value judgment on the decision, and he said yes. Then, just hours after their one-to-one, Michael Matheson hauled the SPA chair back in for another meeting, this time with civil servants, where he then raised issues of process that would prevent the chief constable's return. The SPA chair called it a one-sided meeting, and he said that he felt that he had no choice but to reverse the decision of his independent board. I changed my mind based on the cabinet secretary being unhappy. The independent chair of an independent body has two meetings with the justice secretary, where in the first he's told he's made a bad decision, and after the second he's left in no doubt that he has to reverse it. How can that possibly tally with what SNP ministers have claimed in recent weeks? The key aspects of evidence are clearly inconvenient for Ruth Davidson, because, as I said earlier on, Andrew Flanagan clearly said that he hadn't been requested by the justice secretary to change his decision and that he wasn't directed to do so. Questions were asked, and as I said last week—and I repeat again today—I am absolutely of the view that the justice secretary was right to ask those questions. Again, I would invite Ruth Davidson to perhaps address this point. If she doesn't take the view that the decision to invite the chief constable to return to work without asking Perk if it would compromise an on-going investigation, without telling the acting chief constable and the rest of the senior command and without putting in place any plan for the welfare of officers who'd raised concerns and made complaints, if she doesn't think that that was a defective decision, is it her position that that was a good decision and that the chief constable the following day should have returned to work? I think that it was right to ask those questions. Again, I put it to the chamber and I put it to the Scottish people that if those questions hadn't been asked, if the justice secretary hadn't asked any of those questions. The next morning, the chief constable had turned up to report for work at Tully Allen. Ruth Davidson and other Opposition leaders would have come to this chamber demanding statements and, no doubt, demanding that the justice secretary consider his position. There is rank hypocrisy at play here, and I think that everybody can see it. The First Minister asked me what I would have done. I would have made sure that my justice secretary let this Parliament and this country know about the decisions that he was making. Here's the most damning thing of all. It's that now, on 25 January, we are still having to piece together the details of what happened at the beginning of November when this Government was involved in one of the most important policing decisions it has taken since coming to office. Only now are we getting formal evidence that the justice secretary was absolutely instrumental in preventing the chief constable's return. However, if it hadn't been for reports in the press, the whole thing would have been kept under wraps, and this Parliament would have been kept in the dark. We were told when the national force was set up that transparency would be its watchword. Can the First Minister really stand there and claim that this episode has shown that to be true? I think that we are getting a clear picture today that, in the unlikely event that Ruth Davidson had been or was the First Minister, the chief constable would have come back to work that day without any relevant questions being asked. That is not the kind of governance that the people of Scotland expect and deserve. However, on this issue about what Parliament knows, there is nothing that Ruth Davidson has brought to Parliament today that is different to what she brought to Parliament last week. The reason for that is because there is nothing in what we heard this morning that changes what was already known, because the justice secretary came to this Parliament and gave a full statement and answered questions from across the chamber on exactly what had happened. Nothing that we have heard since then has changed the facts that the justice secretary put to Parliament. Of course, we also had a debate in this chamber yesterday, brought by the Tories, where they lost the vote because they had not made the argument that they are trying to make. The point here is that the justice secretary, discharging his responsibilities, asked legitimate questions. If those who are saying that he should not have asked those legitimate questions are really taking that position, then what they have to explain to the Scottish people is why they think that it would have been right for the chief constable to return to work with no consultation with the organisation that is carrying out an investigation, without the acting chief constable even being told about it and without any concern for the welfare of other officers. That may be Ruth Davidson's position. That is not my position and my position is that the justice secretary acted entirely appropriately. Let's cut through all of this. Last week, the First Minister stood there and told this chamber nine times that her justice secretary did nothing but ask a few questions, but we now know that that is not true. We know that he made it clear that the SPA's decision was wrong. She says that Mr Matheson did not instruct the process, but we now know that the SPA's former chair left his second meeting with the justice secretary feeling that he had no choice but to overturn the authority's decision. Last week, the First Minister stood here and told me that Michael Matheson did not intervene, but doesn't the evidence of this morning show that it's a different story there? Doesn't it make clear that, bluntly, the justice secretary leaned on the SPA? First Minister. The greatest respect it shows is no. Andrew Flanagan, the former chair of the SPA, said at the committee this morning that he hadn't been requested by the justice secretary to change his decision. He had no option in his view but to change his decision because he couldn't answer the most basic question about the process that had been followed. Again, we come back to the nub of this issue. Ruth Davidson has changed ground with every single question that she's asked today, but the nub of this issue is this one. If Ruth Davidson is saying that the justice secretary should not have asked these questions, should not have acted in the way that he did, then by definition she must be saying that the chief constable should simply have been allowed to return to work, no matter the fact that none of these basic steps had been followed. Ruth Davidson keeps saying that nine times last week that I said that I thought that the justice secretary had behaved entirely appropriately. I've said it several times again today, so let me say it one more time. The justice secretary acted entirely appropriately. He acted in the interests of the people of Scotland and, faced with the same circumstances again, he would do the same and ask the same legitimate questions all over again. 2. Richard Leonard Thank you, Presiding Officer. Last week, I raised with the First Minister the Save Our Beals campaign. Those are elderly people facing eviction from their homes. The First Minister said that her health secretary would meet with the campaigners as a matter of urgency, but today's Courier newspaper reports that campaigners are still waiting. Can the First Minister update the chamber on what progress has been made? The First Minister Yes, I can. Shona Robison's private office has, over the course of the last week, made a number of offers of meeting times that the group, for no doubt understandable reasons, was unable to accept. Last night, the health secretary spoke directly to one of the campaigners, seeking to organise a meeting that she wanted to ensure that she had their views before she met with Beald, as she did earlier this morning. However, during that meeting, the health secretary arranged to meet with representatives of the campaign, and that meeting will take place on 6 February. Richard Leonard I thank the First Minister for that answer, and I hope that we can see an early and satisfactory resolution to this. When a Government makes a promise to the people, it is important that that promise is kept, not least when it comes to the wellbeing of people's families. On 1 May 2016, the First Minister told Gordon Clark on national television that there were no proposals to close the children's ward at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley. And now, less than two years later, her Government is closing the children's ward down. Mr Clark is here today in the gallery, so will the First Minister take this opportunity to apologise to Mr Clark for misleading him? It is interesting that Richard Leonard today said that, back in May 2016, I gave a commitment about the Royal Alexandra hospital and the children's ward there. It is interesting because this is what Labour said about that after that debate. They said that, during that debate, I had been asked to give a guarantee to protect those services and I refused to give the guarantee. That was Neil Bibby for the avoidance of doubt, but on the substance of the issue—this is a far more important issue than simply political interchanges and exchanges. The health secretary updated Parliament earlier this week on the decision around ward 15 at the Royal Alexandra hospital. She said, and I think that she was right to say it, that it is possibly the most difficult decision that she has had to make as health secretary, and that is entirely understandable. Every decision that affects the interests of children and particularly the health of children should be a difficult one for ministers to make. She arrived at the decision that she made, having taken into account a range of views, including the very important views of parents, but arrived at that decision based on clinical evidence. It is worth noting what the lead paediatric clinicians, the chief nurse for paediatrics at the Royal Alexandra hospital and the Royal hospital for children, said earlier this week. They think that the change will help to implement the standards that the Royal College of Pediatricians and Child Health set to ensure that high-quality healthcare is delivered to children and that the implementation of those standards will contribute to better outcomes for children and young people. That is the clinical advice that drove the decision. Of course, the health secretary attached conditions to that decision. First, the board must maintain and develop community-based paediatric services and maximise local provision. Secondly, they must work directly with families from the Paisley area on specific individual treatment plans and those plans must be in place before any service changes are made. As the matter moves forward, the interests and the health of children will be absolutely paramount at every stage. I hope that the First Minister listens to expert opinion when it comes to things such as mesh implants. The First Minister needs to understand the depth of anger about that. That is not just about party politics, it is about her integrity. People feel betrayed. People feel betrayed with good reason. Campaigners who were accused of lying. SNP politicians who were more interested in saving the local McDonalds than saving the local children's ward. When a decision was finally made, it was sneaked out on a Friday afternoon and the Government tried to bury bad news in the middle of a snowstorm. So, First Minister, why should the people dependent on the Vale of Leven, the parents dependent on the children's ward at St John's, why should they trust you now and why should the people of Paisley ever trust you again? First Minister? First, on the manner of the announcement, the health secretary stood up in this chamber earlier this week, set out the reasons for her decision and answered a range of questions from across the chamber. That is exactly right and proper. On the issue of substance here, as we have always done, as we did when first in government we saved Monklin's and Ayr accident and emergency services from the closure planned by Labour, we will always take those decisions and they are never easy decisions for any health secretary on the basis of best clinical evidence. Let me quote Philip Davis, a consultant pediatrician, who, when he was interviewed after the health secretary announced the decision. He said that if children are seriously unwell, then having the back-up facilities of things such as the paediatric intensive care unit, theatres, specialist medical and surgical specialties at the Royal hospital for children, things that are not available in ward 15, that means that we can start definitive care for sick children at a much earlier stage. That is the clinical evidence that underpin and drove the decision. The charity action for sick children Scotland said that the compelling argument is that clinical standards are there to support the best quality healthcare, and we feel that that would best be achieved by moving ward 15 to the Royal hospital for children. That is the evidence that drove the health secretary's decision. The concern about local access is an important one, and absolutely the concerns about parents require to continue to be addressed. That is why the conditions that the health secretary attached to the decision are so important. First, it is about development of community-based services, and secondly, the board is requiring to work with individual families on individual treatment plans. Those conditions are important, and the health secretary will ensure that those conditions are met before any service change proposal goes ahead. On Monday this week, Murray and Murray Ltd, a kitchen manufacturer in Glennothys, went into liquidation with the loss of 40 jobs. The company has also left several customers in the lurch as they demanded upfront payment. Can the First Minister advise me what support the Scottish Government can give to my constituents affected by those job losses and by Murray and Murray's unfinished work? I thank Jenny Gilruth for raising the issue. Obviously, at a time like this, our thoughts are very much with those who work for a company in these situations, Murray. We will look to work with the company to minimise any threat to employment. Of course, if there are redundancies in prospect, we will pay our organisation that deals with those things and will work with affected employees to make sure that we help them into alternative employment. However, this is a difficult time for all concerned, and the Scottish Government will do everything that it possibly can to assist. Tom Mason Thank you, Presiding Officer. The latest quarterly figures show that 536 referrals to a pain clinic in the Grampian health board, only 51, were seen for the first appointment within the 18-week target. Clinations in NHS Grampian have confirmed that waiting time for the new routine appointment is now 40 weeks. Can I ask the First Minister when should patients expect to see reductions in their waiting times? The Scottish Government will, as we already do, continue to work with health boards to make sure that patients who need care achieve that care. I know in terms of pain clinics how important it is for patients to access those services and to access them speedily. I will ask the health secretary to look into the specific issue that the member has raised and get back to him in writing. I absolutely readily acknowledge that those are important issues that are raised. First Minister hides when she has been found out. She usually hides behind the NHS in England or the NHS in Wales. Today, it is a new law. She is hiding behind Scotland's doctors. Doctors may have advised her to close the children's ward at Paisley, but they did not force her to lie in that election TV debate. Is she not ashamed of blaming the doctors for her broken promise? Mr Rennie, just be careful with the use of your language, please. I am not sure that anybody heard the end of your question. There was so much noise. If you just finish the end of your question, I will ask the end of my question again. Is she not ashamed—is the First Minister not ashamed—of blaming the doctors for her broken promise? I think that all we have learned from that question is that Willie Rennie is a pathetic attention seeker. Given the state of his party, it is perhaps not surprising. Let me return to the substance of the issue. The proposal on the children's ward at the Royal Alexandra hospital came to the Scottish Government almost a full year after the debate that Willie Rennie is talking about. Secondly, Willie Rennie accuses me of hiding. I am standing in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament asking questions on this and a whole range of other issues, but I happen to think—maybe that is just the difference between Willie Rennie and I—that when decisions are being taken about really important matters of health service provision, it is important to listen to the experts on the front line and to listen to the doctors and the nurses who, with the greatest respect to Willie Rennie, know probably more than he does about how best to care for some of the sickest children in our society. So, yes, we listened to the doctors and, Presiding Officer, I am sorry if it upsets Willie Rennie, but I am not prepared to apologise for listening to doctors who know best about how to treat sick children in this country. I am sorry, but indulging that level of clapping does not impress anybody. Please keep that to a minimum. At the moment, what we have just had—to both participants and to the chamber—is that the use of language does not do anybody any favour whatsoever. Personal accusations, the use of the word lying in particular, Mr Rennie, is a word that you have to be extremely careful about, but it does not help for the First Minister to rebut by using personal accusations back. I should not have to remind anybody in this chamber that you should treat each other with respect. You are here to talk about the issues, not to indulge in personal accusations across this chamber. Please, would both participants bear that in mind in framing the question and in framing the answer? Mr Rennie. Presiding Officer, I was there. I was standing right next to Nicola Sturgeon when she said what she had said. The First Minister led everyone to believe that the children's word at Paisley was safe in her hands.  She said that she would always stand up for local services, but now she is shutting them down. Let me ask her this. Does she feel guilty for misleading the parents of sick children? The First Minister said in that debate that there was no proposal on that word. There was, at that time, no proposal on that word. There had been no clinical evidence presented. That changed over the course of the months that followed. It is quite a similar exchange to the one with Ruth Davidson in some ways. I suppose the Opposition is so intent, as it is, on attacking the Government. It failed to follow through on the logic of what it is saying. Ruth Davidson is so keen to attack Michael Matheson that she forgets the logic of her question, which is that she would have allowed something indefensible to happen. What Willie Rennie is saying is that we should have the health secretary stood against all the clinical evidence of the nurses and the pediatricians who care for sick children. I know how difficult those issues are. I know how difficult they are for parents. There can be nothing worse than being the parent of a desperately sick child, but that makes all the more important that we listen to expert advice to make sure that we have the best possible services in place for sick children, and that is what the health secretary has done. Thank you very much. We have a number of supplementaries, I should say. The first is from Jamie Greene. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This week is proving to be quite a miserable week for rail travellers in Scotland. Landslip has closed the Glasgow to Edinburgh line. The West Highland line was closed after derailment. Landslides are affecting cross-country services near Kilmarnock, flooding and debris is causing problems right across the network, all causing disruption to tens of thousands of commuters. We cannot control the weather, but can I ask the First Minister if she is confident that our rail network was adequately winter-proofed and ready for this adverse weather, and can she provide an update to Parliament when these services will be operational again? It has been an incredibly difficult week for those who work on railways and, indeed, for those who travel on our railways. The member has gone through some of the reasons for that, mainly weather-related. That is why it is such a tribute to those who are working on our railways. As of 8.30 this morning, performance across the rest of the Scottish network, with the exception of Adam Triglasgow, which I will come on to in a second, against the performance measure, was 91 per cent. That is a good performance, and I think that those who have delivered deserve our credit. Of course, there have been challenges caused by the weather. The most serious and significant of those, of course, is the closure of the Adam Triglasgow railway line because of the landslip that occurred in a cutting near the village of Filpston, which was caused by very heavy rainfall around Noon yesterday. A work plan has been agreed and implemented for the reinstatement of the railway. That is planned to be completed this afternoon, however, as members will understand. That will be subject to an inspection of the signalling cables that were buried in the landslip. Those are difficult circumstances for passengers. I want to thank the travelling public for the patience that they display. I deeply regret when there is inconvenience caused, but I am sure that most reasonable people know that some of those weather-related incidents cannot be avoided. Our job is to make sure that things get back on track as quickly as possible, and that is exactly what is happening. Kezia Dugdale First Minister, the Scottish Sports Association is an independent, member-led organisation that supports voluntary sport, and the Government's decision to remove their funding has been met with widespread dismay and anger. Every single Opposition member of this chamber has signed a motion to that effect. Given that there is no majority in this chamber for this decision, will the First Minister urgently revisit this cut and live by her personal promise to champion Scottish sport? The Scottish Government has a good relationship with the SSA. We strongly appreciate the support that it provides. This week, the Sports Minister met the SSA and indeed represented the cross-party group on sport to discuss how we develop a sustainable financial future for the SSA. Eileen Campbell has been clear that we continue to consider ways in which the SSA can have a sustainable future. That supports collaborative working to create the act of Scotland that all of us want to see. We will continue to take those deliberations forward, and I hope that we can get to a good position that is good for the SSA as well as sport in general. I remind the chamber that we invest heavily in sport generally, with the draft budget committee, to increase the funding for sport Scotland by £2 million. We have also pledged to underwrite any potential shortfall in the national lottery funding for sport Scotland, up to £3.4 million, to provide certainty for the sport sector in the absence of action from the United Kingdom Government. We will continue to take decisions that are in the interests of developing sport across our country. Miles Briggs First Minister, GPs across Scotland, especially in rural Scotland, are concerned at the impact that the new GP contract will have on their practices. Under the proposed contract, one rural GP in Argyll and Bute is set to lose 87 per cent of their funding. I think that all of us would agree that that is an unacceptable situation. Many GPs feel that the Scottish Government is set now to set rural GPs against urban GPs. Can I therefore make a positive suggestion to the First Minister and the Health Secretary to pause the contract until this Parliament's health and sport committee has had the opportunity to properly scrutinise the new GP contract so that we can make sure that it does not destabilise what is already a crisis for general practice across Scotland? First Minister. Of course, last week, the overwhelming majority of GPs voted to accept the new GP contract, and I warmly welcome that. I think that that is good for the profession, and I also think that it will be good for patients. On the issues around rural GPs, of course we must listen to those, that is why a short-life working group has been established to look specifically at those issues. Members do not have to simply listen to the Scottish Government on this. It is the position of the BMA that those concerns being expressed by rural GPs are unfounded and that no GP will lose funding as a result of the new contract. That is the reality of the situation, but I accept that we have to convince rural GPs that that is the case, and we will continue to work collaboratively with them to seek to do exactly that. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to increase the uptake of screening for early diagnosis of cervical cancer. First Minister. Cervical screening saves around 5,000 lives a year. It prevents up to eight out of 10 cervical cancers. We have invested in a national campaign to promote screening generally. £5 million of funding from our cancer strategy has been invested in our screening programmes, including cervical screening, to encourage those who are eligible to take up their invite. We are also supporting the work of charities such as Joe Cervical Cancer Trust to increase awareness of screening and address some of the barriers. To enable the charity to extend their reach, we are funding their new outreach service that targets women who are less likely to attend. Thanks to cervical screening and the HPV vaccination programme, cervical cancer is now preventable, and that is a good thing. Kenneth Gibson. I thank the First Minister for that answer. Cervical cancer is the most common cancer in women under 35, and yet a recent survey by Joe Cervical Cancer Trust found that more than three out of five, some 61 per cent were unaware that they are in the most at-risk age group for the disease. Indeed, a quarter of eligible women aged 25 to 64 do not currently take up their invitation for a smear test, rising to one-third among 25 to 29-year-olds. The reason behind that is largely self-consciousness and embarrassment. Are there any measures that have been taken to reduce the apparent stigma that seems to surround cervical screening, especially among younger women? We would agree with the health secretary as she simply put it that screening does save lives. First Minister. Yes, I absolutely agree with that. We know that there are barriers to women accessing cervical screening. Those barriers include fear, pain, often embarrassment. As a woman, I not only understand those concerns, I absolutely identify with them. That is why it is very important that we continue to talk to each other and support and encourage each other to understand the importance of screening. At government level, to help overcome some of those barriers, as I said a moment ago, we are investing in a high-profile awareness raising campaign, helping to generate conversations about those issues. We are also supporting the work of local activities and communities to open up dialogue about cervical screening, helping women to fully understand why the test is so important and to make it the norm to attend when appointment letters are issued. We will continue to raise awareness and work to address stigma as taking up screening for many women. It is nothing short of a matter of life or death. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking in response to reports that two thirds of teachers do not feel that they have had sufficient training in supporting the mental health of their pupils. We believe that every child and young person should have access to emotional and mental wellbeing support in schools, so we want to ensure that all teachers and staff are confident in supporting their needs. Mental health first aid training is currently being delivered to school staff within secondary school communities by Education Scotland in partnership with NHS Health Scotland. In addition, as part of the 10-year mental health strategy, we have begun work to implement and improve mental health training service for everyone who supports young people in schools. Thank you First Minister for that answer. I would like to push a bit more, if I may. Schools across Scotland are understaffed and overstretched, and teachers want nothing more than to support their pupils. Therefore, given that only one in 100 teachers recall doing any detailed work on mental health in their initial teacher education, will the Scottish Government give a commitment to this chamber for mental health to be comprehensively covered in all teacher education? I will ask the education secretary to look at what more we can do around teacher training. I think that it is an important point. I think that it is vitally important that teachers at the very early stage of their career understand the importance of mental health. We continue to take the action. I spoke about it in my earlier answer. In December, we also announced funding in a youth commission on mental health, which will be delivered in partnership between SAMH and Young Scot, which will provide recommendations on the way forward for CAMHS services and support. We also provide funding to Childline to provide confidential advice and information to children and young people. Those are important matters that we will continue to take forward. It is because those matters are so important that we are putting forward a budget to this Parliament that increases funding for our national health service and ensures that teachers get more funding directly to them in our schools. I will simply say to the member that if he believes that our schools are stretched as he said, then he please should not support proposals in the forthcoming discussions of our budget that would remove £500 million from the money that this Government has got to invest. I refer members to my register of interests as a registered mental health nurse. Can the First Minister outline what other actions her Government is taking to improve the mental health and wellbeing of our children and young people? What role does the mental health strategy play in that? The mental health strategy plays a key role in that. Of course, that strategy is backed by investment of £150 million over five years. It sets out how we can improve early intervention and ensure better access to services, including for young people. As I said in response to the previous question, we are also funding a range of initiatives to involve young people in the discussions about mental health funding. I spoke about it a moment ago in the Youth Commission and the funding for child lines, so we will continue to take steps like that to make sure that we are focusing on prevention, which is the most important thing, but also making sure that we have the services in place for those who need them. To ask the First Minister when the children's ward at the Royal Alexander Hospital will close. As I said earlier on, the health secretary approved the board's proposals on two conditions. First, the board maintains and develops community-based paediatric services and maximises local provision. Secondly, it must work directly with families on specific individual treatment plans. Those plans must be in place before any service changes are made and will ensure that there is a full understanding of what services and support will be available to local families and from where. The board has given an assurance that there will be no change made to the service until those individual patient plans are in place. Neil Bibby My community understands that there is a debate to be had about localisation and specialisation, but in an area as sensitive as children's services, the least they deserve is an honest debate. During an election, the First Minister gave a calculated and cynical answer that she thought she could get away with. You are right. I did not trust your answer. I thought that you were trying to mislead people and I have been proven right. Over the last week, the health secretary tried to sneak her decision out on a Friday afternoon. Local SNP politicians, who once accused campaigners of scaremongering, now applaud the decision in the chamber. On two occasions, the health secretary has snubbed an invite to meet the parents who will have to live with her decision. Does the First Minister understand why so many people, such as Gordon Clark, who is here today, feel betrayed? What will she learn and change from the disgraceful way that her Government and her party have treated the people of Paisley? I do not agree with or accept that characterisation. In actual fact, the substance of the issue is what matters most. The health secretary met parents twice before reaching the decision. I understand that the chair of the health board wants to organise a meeting with parents to discuss the individual patient plans that will be put in place. The health secretary is happy to attend that, so on-going engagement with parents is vitally important. Neil Bibby asked me what lessons are learned all along in those decisions. As everybody who has been in the position of taking those decisions knows, those are never easy decisions. Health secretaries have to look at the evidence in the round. The views of parents are hugely important, but, ultimately, that is about providing the best services for six children. I have already quoted a number of clinicians. I am sorry that I do not think that views like that from experts from specialist clinicians should be ignored. That is the basis of the decision. However, what is also important is the community services that are provided. That is where parents are absolutely right to continue to ask questions. That is why the conditions attached to that decision are so important, and why the health secretary will make sure that both of those conditions are met in full before any service change proceeds. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is marking Holocaust Memorial Day. We must never forget the horrors of the Holocaust and other genocides around the world. They are a stark reminder of the inhumanity and violence that bigotry and intolerance can wreak if left unchallenged. Last night, I was honoured to speak at this year's national event to mark international Holocaust Memorial Day, which took place at Glasgow Caledonian University. I commend Interfaith Scotland and the Holocaust Memorial Trust for their excellent work in organising this event. I know that members across the chamber will be marking the day in different ways. We must continue to stand shoulder to shoulder in challenging hatred and promoting a world where everyone lives with fundamental human dignity. I thank the First Minister for that answer and recognise the support that the Scottish Government gives to the Holocaust Educational Trust. I also thank, if you do not mind, the Presiding Officer for his support of the Holocaust Educational Trust in Parliament this week. I stated earlier that the Deputy First Minister was deeply affected by his recent visit to Auschwitz with 200 Scottish school pupils. Colleagues from across the chamber have been moved by their visits to Srebrenica and other sites of genocide and persecution across the world. Such terrible atrocities are reminders of man's inhumanity to man, but those lost to us will never be forgotten. Will the Government continue to support projects in our schools, giving Scotland's young people the chance to remember, to learn and to play their part in consigning intolerance and genocide to the history books forever? As the Deputy First Minister said just in advance of First Minister's questions, I think that the role of education here is vitally important and can never be overstated. I listened again last night to a very impressive young woman who had been part of the school's programme visiting Auschwitz. I have heard the testimony of many of those young people who have done so in the past, and it never fails to have an impact and to deeply move. I have not had the opportunity yet to visit Auschwitz myself. The Deputy First Minister did so recently. I certainly hope to have that opportunity in the future. Around 18 months ago, I took the opportunity to visit Srebrenica. I knew in theory a lot about the Bosnian genocide, but it was not until visiting the site of it to visiting the memorial to talking to some of those affected, some of those bereaved, some of the survivors that the true impact of that is really felt. That is an experience that I know others across the chamber have also had that will live with me for the rest of my life. I think that it becomes more important with every year that passes from the Second World War in particular that this remembrance continues. We must make sure that the next generation never forgets, and that is why the Holocaust Memorial Day and all the events that go around it are so important. The theme of course this year is the power of words. Perhaps all of us—I have been reminded today, Presiding Officer, that we could all learn lessons about that. Words have great power, so we should be careful all of us how we choose them. However, let us perhaps at the very end of First Minister's questions today, notwithstanding all the many things that divide us as a chamber, that divide us as a country and as a society, come together and remember the power and the importance of our common humanity. This is Holocaust Memorial Week. Today is also the day that we celebrate the birthday of our national bards, and it is quite appropriate that those two things are in such close proximity, because in many ways Robert Burns personifies that humanity. So, man to man, the world or shall brothers be for all that. Thank you very much, I would thank all members for their participation. That concludes First Minister's questions. We turn now to members' visits in the name of Morris Golden. We'll just take a few moments for members to change seats.


Hey everyone, I'm here with Savage Joy. You know her from Real Progressives And we are here to talk about the state of the 2020 Democratic Party primary. Thank you so much for being here Joy Thank you so much for having me. It's It's an honor. It's it's been a long time coming and for those of you who missed that I was actually on Joy's podcast a couple of months ago and I think she might be the sweetest person ever. I absolutely just I want to adopt her So I'm excited to have her on here But before we get to the substance, let me just plug Joy's GoFundMe because she's having medical issues and I really want to just put that out there If you have a couple of bucks to chip in to support her She's another one of those Americans who has insurance, but still has to fight with her insurance companies So if you can consider supporting that I'll also link to my niece's GoFundMe who has a baby in the NICU currently Just whatever we can do to support each other. So Joy, let me just kind of Get a sense of where your head's at in terms of 2020 with Bernie Sanders and everything that's happening Thus far. Do you feel confident in Bernie? Do you think it's going well so far because he's been in I think for about a month now And I know that because I officially had the first donation drawn from my account. I realized that I'm like It's been a month already. So What do you think about the state of the race, do you think he's doing okay? And is it what you expected in terms of the establishment kind of just dog piling on him? I I'm really proud of our campaign so far. I think we're doing a lot of things differently Last time, you know, we could have done some things differently and I think it's because you know Even Bernie himself has acknowledged he never expected, you know even close to how this all blew up He thought he was just gonna get in and kind of bring some progressive ideas to the table and Hopefully get Queen Hillary to kind of move a little left But it ended up blowing up where this time I feel like you really listened to us because he has a lot of people of color on his staff He has a lot of women on his staff He finally shared things about his personal life, which I knew could not have been easy but You know last time we would say, you know He would give speeches on Martin Luther King day and not even share that he marched with Martin Luther King like he was He was scared. He wouldn't look modest or or I'm not sure what it was But I'm like dude, you're like one of two people who can say that. Can you please like say it? Yeah, it's not bragging like it's oh my god. This is amazing You were able to do that. Um, I think a lot of him, uh, you know Feared the anti-semitic pushback sharing his family, you know dying in the Holocaust things like that Um, I have you know many screenshots saved of anti-semitism from Democrats Um, and and it's been just very eye-opening um with the the amount of anti-semitism that especially on twitter, um, so Usually, you know, I think maybe that stopped him as well Um, as far as the establishment and and the hillary supporters and kamala supporters I expected this. I mean, it's it's worse than last time because now he has a name And now they're even more threatened. Yeah, and I know it sounds like kind of cliche They're only picking on us because they're scared, but like seriously that is what it is I mean, they've been attacking in months before you even announced Oh, totally And what I really love is that and I don't know if you get the same sense too But I get the sense that they're really pushing for unilateral disarmament among the so-called bernie bros Because I think that during a primary one of the most important things you can do is comb through the records of the candidates Because that's how you get the sense of how progressive or centrist they are That's how you kind of determine where they stand But when you saw, uh, you know, for example in december david surrota released A piece about beto auroric where he just went through his record and stated facts that was portrayed As a bernie bro basically taking shots preemptively for bernie sanders and us being overly aggressive When we see the aggression all the time beth on twitter beth an alien I think she changed it currently beth standing on counters shout out to her, but she um screencaps a bunch of sexist tweets Sent to her. So it's not like, you know, this is something that's unique to bernie sanders I mean, we deal with it as well. The difference is just that we don't have the establishment reporting on it because That wouldn't really help their narrative. So talking about, you know 2020 and how different it is from 2016 I kind of wanted to get your take on this betto bernie dynamic because I Initially felt like this and I think maybe a lot of other people did too that kamala was Going to kind of be the person who bernie had to beat She was the one who had a lot of support from the donor base and the establishment and media But now it kind of seems like She's being sidelined for betto auroric and I Do you kind of feel like that? And I wanted to know who do you think is his biggest competition? In terms of the establishment like putting aside warren and tulsi and whatnot. Who do you think is his biggest establishment competitor?  So that's exactly what happened um Do I think beto's a threat? In some ways because I think so many people do not take the time to research records They don't Um, which is why I'm so adamant, you know constantly posting them everywhere Unfortunately, a lot of them don't read it or they're apologists or well, this was last year.  Yeah Disgusting you have the clip of that because I just heard about it. I didn't see the clip. I put it on twitter Yeah, we're gonna have to um I'll actually I'll just insert it in because this will be post production So I'll just put that in so people can see it.  I didn't want to interrupt you.   He'll beat trump Um, that that's not gonna happen. He was the one I can guarantee like we're stuck with republicans if he's the nom There's just no way. Um But all of the apologies and people have like, you know, obama nostalgia Yeah, we met obama and for some reason like I don't know why but um for some reason People are like obsessed with joe biden memes.  He said Yeah, like the like the obama biden bro memes Yeah, and I don't I never found those like charming at all Like I don't I don't get that but yeah, I I can kind of see where you're coming from.  He's the centrist with the grassroots support as far as we know Um, the thing about biden and I think you're right about this people view the past With rose colored glasses once you have those nostalgia goggles off I kind of think and this is all speculation We have no idea that he's gonna face plant and that's what a lot of people think as well But it's hard to say because I think that you're right because there are generally or genuinely rather Unlikable people that kind of go the distance.  You know what? I mean someone who's just repulsive Hillary clinton someone who's pretty unlikable Went the distance so it's possible that someone unlikable like joe biden who is arguably less Unlikable than someone like Ted Cruz Could go the distance so it's really up in the air Um, but you know the thing that kind of makes me feel a little bit bad for kamala If I if we want to be sympathetic towards someone who is an establishment democrat with a horrible record Is that out of all the establishment candidates and I kind of want to get your take on this She's the one who I would have hoped went further than the other corporate democrats because she's the most tolerable And everyone else rubs me the wrong way So if I had to guess how it would play out, you know, it'd be a progressive and an establishment democrat going head to head in the end And obviously we want bernie to be the progressive but if I had to choose an establishment person it would have been kamala because She just first of all, I think she's the most politically savvy And she's the most malleable out of all the corporate democrats because she at least knows that if she is elected She would have to give progressives at least some policy concessions to get us elected To get reelected. Um, and I just feel like She wouldn't irritate me the most like I see beto talking.  So it better be with him Um, but he just everything he says and does is just so ridiculous like I may have sent you the picture. I'm not sure but his rally yesterday It was literally Entirely why like oh, I saw the picture with people's faces completely just bored. They looked I they looked so beyond miserable I couldn't like I felt so bad Like people were like zooming in and making memes like half the people were on their phone Half of them look like they were checking their watch. I mean and you know, he's beta himself put that photo up there Yeah, it wasn't something someone else took like that was beta and I'm like if you are the one who put that up I don't want to know what the other photos look like because that's pretty bad And then he films a video of himself getting gas asking for gas money And his wife is a billionaire oh Yeah, her dad is like, I don't know who her dad is but her dad is like extremely wealthy I've heard I've heard contradictory things about her dad that he's a billionaire Or he has like 500 million but either way If you have that much money Regardless, if you have more than one million, let's just let's just you know say that You don't need to be asking anyone for gas. That's kind of egregious. I think um, and I get that he wants to be like gas routes, but I'm sorry Pay for it yourself, dude. What are you doing? Exactly. Yeah, he's not sad. He's just not savvy with social media. Go ahead he um Yesterday, I think I sent you this video um a um Some I want to say maybe there were some of the climate kids um, but they went up to him with a Sheet of paper that says I agree not to take any fossil fuel of money During my campaign blah blah blah. He said no, I can't sign that And push it away tells you everything you need to know and when you look at open secrets He's what the he's on the top in terms of oil and gas recipients second Jesus christ after tech cruise Which is absolutely insane for a democrat, but I don't I don't know if that's packs. I don't know if that's individual contributions Um like from the past but either way the fact that he won't sign that pledge It tells me everything I need to know. He's not taking climate change seriously, which to me It doesn't make sense because if you have young kids Um, you think that that should be a priority if you really care about their future But to not take the no oil and gas money pledge. I just it drives me nuts Um, I hate it.  I think out of all of the candidates I'm the most sick of him so far Because he's so fake He really is kind of the hillary of this election in terms of I'm the social media mogul fellow kids And he had the dental cleaning thing. It's like who does this Yeah, I was born to be in it.   It's not impractical but yet Medicare for all is impractical You know, these people are just They are irritating the shit out of me and we're just a couple of months in so I mean, I really should pace myself better But um, yeah, so In terms of the best of the worst for you Is it also better? Do we have agreement there because I kind of feel like a lot of people feel that way I think, you know, well when that video came out and also There was a a young woman who was a college student and that one came out two days ago um, this one the climate one was yesterday and the young College student two days ago came out Where he came to her college and she said I have two questions to ask She said first of all, what are your individual donations for the 6.1 million? and what is the How many individuals and what is the average donation and he said I'll I'll get that info and she said when and he said I'll I'll get it and then she said, when are you going to have any actual platform besides just a bunch of platitudes and like Uh, he just like walks across the stage Looks this way and like starts just fumbling miserably and gave nothing but like I feel like no dude Yeah, yeah, and let me just give a shout out to her her twitter handle is um, hey, hey, it's leslie j I believe Um, I've retweeted her so and I'm sure joy has to so if you go on our timeline You can find her. Um, she has the most journalistic skills out of anyone. I've ever seen Or at least seen in recent history And these are the types of questions that you've got to be asking the fact that it's so rare that we see this type of question It's honestly mind-boggling because you'd expect this level of pressure and really her kind of setting up the question Explaining it to people around her. That's what journalists should be doing. You know, you've got to educate people And we just don't see that so I feel like candidates would feel more pressure to release full platforms If they did actually get pressured by mainstream media journalists, but we just don't see that and Like when I think of better or work, I don't see the lane That he's carving for himself other than like centrist Bernie because like each candidate kind of brings something unique to the table with bernie I kind of see medicare for all this his main issue, but I mean he has a plethora of issues Um, and then you see like tulsi her lane is foreign policy with uh, andrew yang his lane is Ubi universal basic income. So each candidate kind of has their own thing that they're bringing Um, but with better or work when you think of him and you think of policies He doesn't stand for anything and the only thing we've been learning about is his medicare for everyone Which to be very clear it is not medicare for everyone it still allows people To maintain their private health insurance from their employer and the problem is that this is a centrist think tank proposed uh bill by I think it's center for american progress And what they're trying to do is play cave progressives yet near a tandem exactly They're trying to get us to stop complaining about medicare for all and they're trying to give us something But it's it's awful because People what they're trying to do is they're trying to use this line about oh well people like their insurance That is a mischaracterization.  They care about keeping their doctors and That's the most important thing Um, so I wanted to kind of get your take um to kind of switch gears here Because you asked me when I was on your show who was my number two or who should bernie um Have as his running mate and I've thought long and hard about this and there has been times where I came to a conclusion And I'm like all right I'm set and then I wavered on that multiple times and it's to the point where I'm ready to just kind of throw my hands up and say I have no fucking idea. Um Do you have a sense of who you think he should choose and who is your number two in this race? um my number two would be talsy, um, of course because she's the You know Because she's the only one running who actually stood with bernie first of all. Um So she'd be my number two. Um as far as my vp choice. It has been from day one Miss nina That to me that is dream team. Yeah 100 can fire people up except those two. I mean that would oh my god um So and if talsy's you know secretary of state or or you know another position or whatever cool. That's fine. I would love that. Yeah Yeah, as far as talsy is vp Will I vote for it? Yes, um, am I excited about it?  She was in a photo with andrew yang. I don't know why but it made me uneasy um It also concerns me because a lot of the pictures from her rallies are only half full There's a lot of pairs And how did she not hit the 65 thousand dollars yet? That's concerning because I mean it's been like Maybe two months. I mean it's been well over a month um, so That that concerns me. I also have the concern that she will take some votes away from burning I mean, yeah, I am worried about that too. Um, to be honest, um Although I as kind of the primary has progressed I do kind of feel like progressives are consolidating their votes around burning. So I'm I'm less worried about that now Um, but I tend to agree with you. I think that my number two is also tulsi um And I've kind of gone back and forth, but I like the And again, I'm gonna waver on this again but I think that just right now I'm feeling like burning tulsi will be a good ticket because if you get that combination of economic populism and A peaceful foreign policy plan. I think that would be great Bernie and elizabeth warren would be good. But the problem is I don't like the idea of taking two senators Who um, would otherwise be allies to a progressive agenda? out, um So that is kind of a hard pill to swallow also after seeing her waiver on medicare for all in a really explicit way well, I shouldn't say it's explicit because I think that if you're not savvy you can kind of See that she gave herself some plausible deniability But for you and I who have been in you know, the grind for medicare for all three years now It's clear she wouldn't support it. So it's like I don't know it's tough I I wanted to get your take on yang because I'm moving away from andrew yang more and more every single day And I really did like You know, um, this idea of universal basic income and I do like it. I still do like it But what I'm learning more and more is that there are a lot of libertarians Contradictory so that support this and it's because they support it in lieu of social safety net programs. So my goal Was to ask andrew yang, you know, is this supplementary because I mean, if you if you just do $1,000 universal basic income Well 30 years from now a thousand dollars isn't going to be meant The same it's not going to be as much, you know with inflation So if we do away with social safety net programs because republicans are going to make the case that we have ubi We could be in a worse situation and furthermore He has some really weird libertarian tendencies like an automatic sunset clause on laws So it's like well if you pass ubi, you're sunsetting your own accomplishment So I want to ask him about these things and he agreed to come on my show But he canceled and then I see on twitter that he's going on ben chip hero show Yes, and I'm like dude.  It's not pepe's so So I'm moving away from him and I kind of feel like Everything is starting to crystallize as we get closer like I'm gravitating more. I mean towards tulsi But still remaining very firmly in the bernie camp, but I do think it's important for her To really state clear her positions on certain things. Um the green new deal being one of them Um, but I mean, you know, it's I think somebody said and I can't remember this might have been a video I watched from Maybe it was a rally from rebel hq with emma viglin who does great work um Somebody said had asked a bernie supporter Who's your number two or who's your top two candidates and they said bernie and bernie And I really that resonated with me so much because Yeah There's no there's no one like bernie except nina and the reason why I'm Disinclined from saying nina's my you know my firm number two is because I don't think that she would want it But the dream team ticket, you know, I'm gonna keep the hope alive as much as I can because seeing bernie and nina on a ticket It would honestly be just a dream come true. Um And that sounds corny as hell. I admit that but um, I would cry I would cry and I don't cry very often that would probably make me cry Because she would be amazing and you just know that just like politically to get things done She would be whipping up votes really well She'd be giving speeches that would bring people out to protest for policies Which is something that bernie sanders wants and I just think that there would be such a good duo. It'd be great um So, yeah, that's that's kind of It's hard to work this through and I I noticed that other political commentators like kyle kulinsky are kind of wavering back and forth to as between their number two be at elizabeth warren Or uh tulsi gabbert because it's tough. There's nobody who's close to bernie in terms of that record Which is really really important and it's kind of it's almost unfair Because how often does a candidate come along that has like A 50 year record of just being on the right side of history. That's hard to compete against It's it's so tough. You know what? I mean, so it's almost unfair for them to even be in the same Uh comparisons because bernie really has been just you know, he's been in the um In the fight forever. So, yeah, um I don't know. I know that you wanted to also talk about some of these mirrors from the establishment Um, oh you wanted to know what I think of yang. Oh, yeah. Yeah Um, I had douche on for the fourth time last night.   Um You know, uh Like one of them is like, um, we're we're just giving you Back the money the jews stole from you Things like this and I found an article where yang says and I can send you all this too. Um Where he says They asked him about his alt-right following richard spencer.  Yeah, I've noticed that too Yeah, they asked him about it and he said it's so funny to me. I really wish I could just jump up and down and laugh What does that mean? That's it's actually alarming Well contrast that with tulsi when david duke said something about her nice Like he likes her. I don't know what he said, but she immediately it was like No, I condemn you.   I'm american symbol So, I mean contrast that with richard spencer coming and it's not like Automatically.  They could have nefarious motivations for that So it doesn't automatically make them bad. It's just how they respond yang is kind of just Um, I don't want to say encouraging it. I'm not sure what the right word is but he's joking about it Which is pretty gross and yeah, so I posted. Um, it seems like it's always the ones who's put yang gang Hashtag. Yeah, um, they're doing it. Um, and I shouldn't say all it's just the ones I've encountered So I put on on yang's post yesterday.   We want white separate. We don't want, you know integration We need to take back our money that people are taking from us things like that. It's actually They're reaffirming what I'm saying in those comments. Like it's really ugly. It's gross and Andrew's policy on his website has some really, um Trump-like things on it that are just there's a lot of really weird policies Yeah, like no circumcision, which is just freaking weird. Well, I give I that with that one. I'm fine with the choice But don't like Why is he like so obsessed with everyone? You know, like everyone else is like it's just bizarre Um, but the one that sticks out to me the most and I can't think of how it's working exactly But it's immigration and some of his stuff on it is very disturbing And the way he says it at the top is You want, um, you want to stay here work for it exclamation point and I'm like Wow, that's a really fucked up way to word that.  Can we just narrow it down? I mean when trump announced Millions of people were like i'm not voting for a rich businessman who's never had any political experience, but yang 2020 Well, which is it? Yeah. Yeah, I know and I'm with you there. Um, I forgot what I was gonna say Um, oh, I wanted to ask you about a particular tweet that he put out And it was so vague and it could be interpreted in you know, a really insignificant banal way or it could be harmful He said something about Americans are becoming the underdogs on their own land And so I quote tweeted that and I asked what do you mean by this because it really could be something that's innocent Or it could be something that is very nefarious So you can't just put these types of things out there and not clarify Especially if you're somehow cultivating this right wing following, which is weird, which is one of the reasons why I don't like People who come from the business world I want you to have a career in politics You know, I want you to have a record that I can look to because that's really the only way that you can gauge what type of President or politician they'd be if you come from the business world. That's really different Especially the private sector, you know, it's someone like for me. I'm a democratic socialist and not a social democrat Like I'm anti capitalist. Um I don't I don't find that valuable, you know to come from that world. So I mean look I will say this. I like the idea of universal basic income and I do support it But I think now is the time for him to clarify Does this mean universal basic income exclusively into his credit? He does support medicare for all So not, you know, doing away with all social safety net programs But the reason why this idea of ubi is catching on with a lot of libertarians is because they think that that's a way to Do away with the other social safety net programs, which I am a hundred percent against Um, right because it would be worse off, you know $1,000 a month sounds great if you just want to like game and like, you know, just go out to dinner You know and have that a little bit of cushion, but it's not an end all be all You know what I mean? Like we need winning more So, yeah, um, I'm glad that you're kind of on the same page there because I'm getting more and more irritated with him as the election goes on because um, you know, he has some good ideas so Talk about policy. Don't be the meme president. Um, you know, and it's fine if you want a shitpost. That's fine but like, I don't know it's just I don't know. He's just he's just irritating me and it's been a couple months since so by the time we're like a year in I'm gonna be like fuck andrew yang, but no, I know his supporters will come after me, but that's cool Um, well his he came out the other day and said he insists on four million per year If he is president, so you're talking 16 million dollars. That's what he wants That's what he's that's so weird Why are you even thinking about that you weirdo? but yeah Also what you said, you know when you look at studies in like finland and things where they did try ubi They did take other programs away and I feel like for us. It's like cool. We already have an income So yeah, thousand dollars a month brand. That's awesome. But you're getting you know If you're getting a thousand dollars on disability and you have food stamps and stuff on and um, you know social security on top of it things like that will buy You just lost. Yeah Yeah scary because a lot of people who are disabled and elderly are already living in poverty So you take 12,000 dollars and you're like, yes 12,000 free dollars But that's a very privileged way For us to be excited about it when there are people who are just going to be destitute If yeah, yeah, and if we're going to talk about the idea of ubi We now really do have to clarify Um, is this ubi and that's it or is this something that will supplement other programs? Because if it's the former I don't support that at all You know and and to people who will get pissed because whenever I criticize candidates There's always people who will at me on twitter and be like mike you attacked this person Um, I have been critical of every single candidate. Um, and that includes bernie sanders because you know, unlike other people Yeah, we're not a cult of personality We can be objective and say look you've got to improve and if you truly do support someone like andrew yang Or even bernie you can't just pretend like they're perfect because no candidate is perfect. So by bringing up these criticisms You increase the odds that they will listen and then improve So like I was accused of attacking bernie sanders Or somebody said I keep attacking him on the issue of reparations But it's not like i'm attacking him the reason why I feel the need to vocalize whatever criticisms I have with bernie is because he's like the one or two politicians that do listen, you know what? I mean, so I think that people need to be less closed-minded and stop being so Um, I guess tribalistic whenever they hear their team being attacked and whatnot because we can't be like Santeress neoliberals who are just playing team politics or republicans We can't like we've got to practice what we preach, you know in a way. Um, so yeah Yeah Well, everybody anybody who watches our shows know that we love us some bernie. So if we criticize him It's in a healthy way. It's not saying Bernie like no, it's not if we criticize him It's because it's tough love look dude.   Like that's the way that I view it and the way that we should view it probably not the best analogy But you know, you know, I think people get the point um Because yeah, and and like it was the same with tulsi people said that oh well You're attacking tulsi when I released a video that um, I was critical of her They're saying, you know, you were attacking tulsi because you just want to help bernie But I had to explain No, no, no, I'm not about breaking down progressives. I'm about building them up because there's a very good possibility that in the event Bernie or tulsi win the nomination Um, they're gonna team up, you know, that could be a duo. So we need to make sure that they improve We don't know, you know what I mean? And it's the same with elizabeth ward. She has Basically pissed me off to no extent. Um, I'm trying not to be overly critical because she does have a good record But at the same time, you know, it it is frustrating, you know to see her kind of capitulate on a lot of issues So, yeah Long story short on this issue to wrap up the the um discussion about andrew yang um, don't Recoil at the sound of criticism just kind of embrace it and try to get your candidate to improve if you really do like You know, andrew yang for me personally. He is going down in my book lately and I'm not the only progressive. Um, No Yeah, it's a lot of people who are seeing his posts about White deaths and how white deaths are Increasing too much. He had a tweet that said white Twice in it. So I'm kind of like what is Yeah, it's just you have to at this time Um, I really think people have to be careful with their words. Um, yeah, especially so donald trump is president Don't leave anything out for debate. You know, you have to clarify your stance because I think that Um We're in this political climate that's so incredibly toxic that people will weaponize anything and use it So he you know, if you are not meaning that in any nefarious way If you're not trying to pander to like alt right fuck heads, then just clarify It's as simple as that and he hasn't so he's gone down in my book pretty substantially Um, I wanted to get your take on booty judge because he's someone who I initially was a little bit surprised by but um After hearing his answer on medicare for all Um at the cnn town hall totally dismissed him Um, and I wanted to know because people seem to disagree with that take and it was received really well So what is your take on that? You know, this is very interesting. I can't I of course I love the fact that he's lgbtq, but I do not do identity politics. Oh, totally That would be like a an added bonus Yeah, 100 i agree with you. Yeah So but as far as he goes, I don't know if you knew this but people are telling me He was actually a bernie volunteer like bernie valent. Um You know big bernie supporter wrote a paper on him in college. I heard that That like that's kind of cool. I mean But I'm with you as far as the medicare for all thing.  So if you notice They know that we want medicare for all So what are these centrists proposing? Beto auroric proposed medicare for everyone Pete booty judge proposed medicare for everyone who wants it.  Tell me medicare for all. Just make that be your answer And you know one thing one point that I made on um the elizabeth warrentown hall video I did is that we're at this stage now to where if a candidate truly supports medicare for all They're educating people about this policy before they implement it like bernie sanders You know, he answered a question about people keeping their insurance if they have employees He says look, you're gonna keep your doctor. That's really what people care about But the difference will be you get a medicare card now instead of a blue cross blue shield now What that tells me is bernie sanders will fight for medicare for all because he's setting up He's setting the stage for it to be implemented because he's educating people But if you're talking about oh, well, we have to do this. There are many paths to medicare for all You're not gonna implement it. I just think that it's it's evident to me, you know and a lot of people They think that progressives are being overly aggressive in calling this out and that we're just looking for any and everything To attack someone who's not named bernie, but you really have to understand that politicians use Doublespeak Pretty much constantly and if you don't try to decipher what they really mean Then I feel like you're setting yourself up for another obama where you vote enthusiastically for someone and then you get disappointed I don't know how you feel about that if you were an obama Supporter or not back in the day.  Like a lot of my viewers My newer viewers they're like Well, what if someone says the the nominee they do the what about ism and we cannot fall into that because it's so dangerous So do you get those like you say never biden, but what if he's the nominee? Do you want to trump? Yeah, um, I haven't gotten that yet, but I'm sure that it will come like as the primary heats up and gets more uglier But it's like I think I wish people would understand that during a primary Things can get ugly. Um, I mean look at the republican primary in 2016 Donald trump trashed everyone and they trashed him in return and he won So things can get ugly in a primary people need to stop freaking out about that But really I kind of find this whole Don't attack progressive or don't attack democrats thing disingenuous I think it's just kind of a way to get us to shut up And you know, because we have a really strong I think the strongest case ever to be made for bernie Among the left so they have to figure out a reason some way to get us to be quiet And that's kind of the way that I view it. So I just I don't buy um This idea that oh well, you know, what about this? What about that? I I'm just not I'm not down for that yet. Let's let's let's fight right now And then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, you know what I mean like either way Whoever wins the nomination They can't do what hillary clinton did last time They've got to make sure that they secure the left But what she did was she never secured the left and then she tried to win over centrists and moderate republicans And that didn't go very well. So People need to understand that the left will not be placated. We've waited so long We thought obama was the person who would implement, you know Substantial change and we didn't get that so it's getting longer and longer overdue And we're not going to take no for an answer and the new left isn't going to go away And I just I don't think that they've grappled with that fact yet Like they don't see all of the signs like aoc is a sign, you know And what happened with her winning there's signs that There's a new left rising and a new status quo that will take over one day It's just a matter of how fast there's no question about whether or not it will happen Because it what it will happen, you know So yeah, I Go ahead On aoc, you know, I've interviewed her in the past and I see a lot of change in her Like since you've interviewed her Yeah, and I'm not necessarily in a good way. Um, I still support her. I still love her but Um, do you really think she's gonna endorse bernie? Um, I don't know. I think that if she does it will be before new york Um, I hope she does But I basically Have set my expectations so low after 2016 that I Was not expecting anyone to endorse bernie including rokhana, but he did So my expectations are so low. I am planning for Complete actually I'm not planning for disappointment because they're low. So I'm like I'm planning for my expectations to be met But I think that it's likely she will endorse bernie sanders if I if I had to guess Um, and I'm not writing this down Don't quote me later because I am terrible at predictions if I had to guess though I say she probably will but it won't be until it's like the new york primary Um, but I kind of I do notice what you're talking about and I think that a lot of other people feel the same way and the way that I view this is um She is trying to Minimize attacks I guess and I'm trying to be empathetic because I do know that she's basically the target for the right wing So maybe she doesn't want to piss off Democrats too and the establishment anymore because then she has more people against her I don't know but I I do agree with you. Um, I think that her response to ilhan was disappointing I do think that her um response to venezuela is disappointing But I think that she's gotten in um She's learned a little bit after I think it was the interview she did with pbs about um israel palestine where she said I'm not an expert You know after that, I think she became a little bit more reluctant to speak out on foreign policy um And people are pissed off within the establishment that she's still working with justice democrats Which is why maybe she doesn't want to be you know Perceived as being too overly in one camp. But yeah, I do see what you're talking about and I've kind of I've tempered my expectations about politicians and I've just tried to set the bar of Do they still support the policies that I want and if they do then I'm okay with that? Um, but I do see where you're coming from and where others are coming from You know, I know progressive voice said something on twitter that oh, this is whack when she Was excited about hillary responding or something like that and I you know, I've been kind of seeing that You know, I try to keep my finger on the pulse of what's happening. But yeah, I I do I tend to agree with you there Yeah, it's going to be interesting. I'm I'm nervous. But as far as rogos, I've interviewed him three times So and the every single time I've interviewed him He has said run bernie run and this goes back to 2017. I mean, so I knew he was hyping I knew he was going to endorse him. Well, when I saw he was a chair. I was like Flipping I was so happy because he is one of the people that I stand by he is one of the very few That I I adore. He has been so kind and so amazing Um, and he actually asked me to come on my show last time, which was just awesome Yeah, so he's he's down with grass roots. He's down with People who are you know, just activists with a camera just trying to make a change Yeah, and that's what I love about him and there's to her credit. Tulsi is also the same way like she hasn't come on my show yet But I've I've you know talked to her and she's like, yeah, I'd love to come down Or come on your show, you know, um, it's just her staff that is um ghosting me right now So we'll talk about that later. But um, yeah I'm right there with you Yeah, it's like, okay. Come on. Um, but anyways, so it is it's been about 50 minutes before we go Can you please tell everyone where we can find your show? Um, how we can support the show patreon and whatnot Sure, absolutely first. Thank you so much for having me online. Thank you for coming on I want to say really quick that mic is like The the show the independent media I watched religiously through, you know, bernie's campaign and everything He is the reason I was inspired to start savage joy. So this is not bad. No No, when I say this is an honor like I'm not bullshitting you like I my knees are shaking Oh, thank you. You're so sweet Um, but um, if you guys want to check out my show, it's savage joy on real progressives Um, I have about 300 episodes on youtube on real progressives that you can follow Twitter is savage joy marie one Um, and yeah, our facebook is where we get a lot of traffic. We have like 122 000 followers on the The facebook page. That's where our videos tend to premiere Um, so yeah, check us out. We have a lot of good Topics that we touch on it's not just all bernie Yeah, really and in-depth conversations and yeah, I I love the um real progressives and her show So please check it out and thank you so much for coming on joy.  Um, it's a blast.  So don't hit the subscribe button, okay? And whatever you do folks do not hit the notification bell either Mike treats me so unfairly