Good morning. Can I welcome everyone to this second meeting of the Europe Committee of the fifth session of the Scottish Parliament? Can I welcome the public and also the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs? Can I remind everyone, including members, to switch mobile phones to silent and to mention to the witness that the Parliament is moving to digital working? If members are consulting their equipment during evidence sessions, it is not because they are rude, it is because we are moving to digital working. Since the last meeting of the committee, we have expanded. Our role is going to expand as a result of a decision by the Parliament. We have been sent reinforcements in the shape of Ash Denham and Havish Scott. I would like to welcome both our new members to the committee and invite you to make any declarations of interest. I know a relevant interest to declare. I have never been described as a reinforcement before, but I will take that as a great courtesy. Thank you, convener. I have no relevant declarations either. Thank you very much. The committee is now invited to consider item 4 in private. I agree. Our main item of business today is an evidence session on the implications of the EU referendum for Scotland. We are delighted to have Fiona Hyslop here with us, as well as Karen Watt, the director for culture, tourism and external affairs in the Scottish Government. If I could start, cabinet secretary, by inviting you to give an opening statement. Thank you very much, convener. This is the first time I have appeared in front of this committee. I look forward to working with all of you across the brief. I am delighted that the Parliament has agreed to expand the committee. I think that it is really important at this time that all parties are represented on this committee. It is a vital piece of work that will have to be carried out over the future period. Obviously, we are meeting very soon after last week's referendum. I was reflecting that this time last week I hadn't actually cast my vote as yet. A lot has happened over a period of the last week. The First Minister has also committed to meeting with the committee at the earliest opportunity. Having secured the support of the majority of Parliament on Tuesday, the First Minister and the Scottish Government will now begin to take all possible steps to explore all options to protect Scotland's relationship and place within the EU. It was reassuring on Tuesday to see colleagues from across the chamber committing to work together and to deliver on our common values and shared responsibility for the people we serve. To that end, we have been in active contact with the European Member States and the EU institutions. Since the UK voted to leave the EU, I have spoken with the Slovak, French and German ambassadors. Dr Allan has held a briefing with the consular corps in Edinburgh on Monday, 27th. The First Minister has also set up the Standing Council on Europe experts with a variety of views on Scotland's constitutional future to advise us on options open to us to protect Scotland's relationship within the EU. Yesterday, as you may be aware, the First Minister was in Brussels on a successful visit where she met leading figures from the EU institutions and the European Parliament. She explained Scotland's position to leading figures and was received in her own words a very sympathetic response from those she met with and the European press. Yesterday, I spoke with the UK Government's Minister for Europe, David Littington, where I reminded him of the Prime Minister's commitment to meaningfully involve Scotland and the other devolved administrations, not just in the negotiation but in the process leading up to it. I will also meet David Littington next week. With a clear democratic mandate from Scottish voters to remain in the EU, the First Minister has outlined three priorities for the Government. First, to reassure those from other countries who have chosen to make Scotland their home that they are welcome in Scotland. This is their home and we value the contribution. Secondly, to reassure and engage with businesses, organisations and stakeholders. Thirdly, our determination to protect Scotland's relationship with and place in the European Union. In Tuesday's debate, there was concern about the prospect of a second independence referendum. I want to make it clear here today that all options will be considered to protect Scotland's EU relationship and we will bring our recommendations to Parliament in due course. Tuesday's motion in Parliament called upon the Government to report back to Parliament and to the committee. This is the first of many conversations that we will have. I also think that we need to think about the appropriate mechanism, particularly during the recess of how we make sure that members are kept informed. The First Minister has also made a commitment to Parliament to keep party leaders informed of progress, and I ensure that I will do that with my counterparts and leaders in other parties, but we can work out the mechanism by which we do that. More than this, the First Minister, as I said, had made clear her intention for a range of committees to contribute to this process. I think that the Parliament's involvement clearly led by this committee, but it also has an impact on other committees that are important, and that is something that we should explore further. However, that clearly is the responsibility of the Parliament and not of the Government. Yesterday, the Irish president convener addressed the Parliament in what was a very eloquent and magnificent speech. He reminded us that we must respond to demagoguery with an informed, open, respectful, tolerant and engaged discourse and with respectful debate. We are challenged to do democracy better rather than revert to old and divisive myths based on exclusion and often to what is thinly veiled hate or racism. I think that the sentiment that he expressed and his address to us was very meaningful and of the moment. I hope that we will inform the spirit and the content of how we take forward our discussions here in Scotland. I am very keen to explore with you how we, at this even very early stage, find a mechanism by which we together, the Government and the Parliament, can take forward Scotland's interests. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Yesterday's spokesman for the EU commission president, John Claude Junker, said that Scotland had won the right to be heard in Brussels. In your view, what is the significance of that statement? Does it represent a sea change in Scotland's relationship with Europe? The purpose of the First Mrs's visit was to make sure that the position of Scotland and our experience in the referendum and the results of the referendum was heard and understood in Europe. That was certainly achieved. The feedback that we have had is that people recognise that Scotland voted differently than some parts of the rest of the UK. It was important that that was understood. In terms of our relations with Europe, remember, in the longer term, not just from this Government but from previous Governments here in Scotland, we have had a very active role in many fields, not least in representations from ministers and our position within Europe. Fergus Ewing, as we know, was at the agriculture committee on Monday. I have regularly attended council meetings. Scotland has been an active player and led on many issues like climate change, for example. People recognise that we have a position and role, but we are a legal entity as a country. We do have an opportunity to put forward our case. Part of it is making sure that we are listened to. That is certainly what happened yesterday. I think that the fact that the President of the Commission has said that Scotland has won the right to be heard is because 62 per cent of our country decided that they wanted to remain. In terms of all this engagement with European leaders and institutions, what impression have you got from them as to their view of the result of the UK referendum? I do not want to be in a position where there are confidential discussions that other countries have with us that I cannot give you a blow-by-blow report and they would not expect me to. If I can give you a general response, as everybody is in shock, I do not think that people expected this to happen. I think that we have seen that within the United Kingdom. Clearly, there is a view across Europe that they wanted the UK to stay and remain. Therefore, they themselves are coming to terms with what they see as a result that they did not want. As I said, it is early days in this. We need to have a plan of what we want to try and achieve. How we do it, in effect, will take some time. We have to engage early because if Scotland does not engage early, we will not be heard and we will not be expected and necessary to be part of the negotiations. That is why the twin-track approach with working with the United Kingdom and making sure that we are part of their thinking and deliberations is very important, but also recognising that we have to make sure that the different perspectives of Scotland are heard. I think that it is quite interesting that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, recognises also that Scotland should have the opportunity to engage directly. Have you been able to form any kind of impression as to how other member states will approach the negotiations with the UK? For example, there has been a lot of talk about other member states anxious to speed up the process, if you like, rather than delay matters.  It is fair to say that there probably is not one view. There will be different views in different countries for different reasons. Clearly, the council itself will speak on behalf of all the member states in terms of their position. Clearly, from an immediate call that article 50 should have been lodged yesterday—remember, that was at one point in the past few days—was the perceived position. There has obviously been a bit of movement recognising that there needs to be a bit of space in preparation for an article 50 lodging. Of course, in some part—remember, you have 27 and 28 members—we will decide which number we operate with going forward. In terms of the perceptions, some people will want to move very quickly to change how Europe itself works. Some people want to have Europe come closer together and move more quickly themselves. Some will just look at self-interest. You will remember politics. We are politicians. Six weeks ago, we were facing an election, and many other countries will be facing in the coming year, 18-months elections themselves. They will want to reflect their own interests in that. I think it might be wrong to say that there is one view. There will be different views for different reasons. The whole point of the European Council of Ministers is to bring that collection together to identify what the common interest is for all the member states, but also for the institution itself. The one thing that we need to be very careful of and be mindful of is that there is a desire to protect the institution itself. The idea that the United Kingdom and its own negotiations can cherry-pick or renegotiate what a process is. David Cameron spent the best part of the last 18 months or so trying to get a negotiation package. That has been the process up into the referendum. The idea that somehow you can revisit that is now in speculation. There is a hard view that there might not be open to cherry-picking, but politics is politics. Self-interest is interest both for the institution and the member states. If anything, we know from the European institutions that they are pragmatic, but they face a lot of pressures. When we look at this, it is not just from the perspective of the United Kingdom as a one-way street in terms of the relationship of the UK with institutions. They themselves have their own priorities. We should be mindful of that, not just in Scotland but also in the UK as well. In terms of your discussions with the UK Government, the predecessor committee to this committee conducted a piece of work on the implications of Brexit for Scotland. It brought forward evidence from witnesses about the amount of money that comes direct to Scotland from Europe, the farm payments of over €800 million, over €900 million of structural funds and university research funds, which I believe are around £88 million. That committee in its report repeatedly said that the UK Government had failed to give clarity as to whether the Scottish block grant, for example, would be adjusted after Brexit to make up for the loss of those European funding. Have you any additional information that you have managed to glean from the UK Government as to whether we would be out of pocket or whether they are making plans to readjust the block grant? In the spirit of consensus, I will try to refrain from necessarily making hard political points, but I think that there is a general understanding that there is no plan for immediate Brexit, let alone necessarily what might happen further down the line. Those are all issues that I am sure will have to be considered as part of the United Kingdom's deliberations. What is important for us, and this is why this Parliament has to think about, okay, how do we make sure that Scotland's interest is protected? The previous system had the committee working with rapporteurs or lead people in each of our other committees in terms of European interest. For example, we used on cap payments, so I would fully expect the rule affairs committee to think about that dimension and to think about the positioning of Scotland and how that would be best delivered. Certainly, that has to be a part and parcel of our discussions. Yes, with the United Kingdom Government, but also in recognising what the options might be working with the Standing Council of Experts to identify what the interests might be for Scotland in our direct discussions and understanding. I am trying to be fairly circumspect. Yes, there was a blueprint of 650 pages that told us what would happen should there be a Brexit vote. Unfortunately, there isn't. Therefore, we have got to deal with what we have got and try to make sure that Scotland's interest is represented in these parallel discussions. Thank you very much. I will hand over to Lewis MacDonald now, Lewis. Thank you very much. It has been helpful to have you appear in so promptly under these very difficult circumstances, as we all recognise. Can I go back to the question of the twin track and ask you a couple of things about that? One of the issues that appears to be right at the top of the agenda at the moment is not only when article 50 would be triggered, but how article 50 would be triggered. For example, Professor Mark Elliott has expressed the view that, because the referendum was purely an advisory exercise in law, it has no legal force and therefore a decision has yet to be made by the United Kingdom to apply for, to seek to go forward under article 50. Has the United Kingdom Government consulted you on the timing or on the legal and technical requirements that it faces in terms of deciding when to trigger article 50? I noticed in your witnesses today that you have got a number of people who might be placed to give you the background of the constitutional aspects of article 50. In terms of, I have had two discussions with UK ministers. What I would reflect is that we have got an opportunity to recalibrate how the UK Government works with the Scottish Government in relation to negotiations on this issue. Since the referendum itself, I have now spoken to the Secretary of State for Scotland and David Leadington, and David Leadington, as I said, is due up to meet me next week. I think that there is a better appetite for engagement than perhaps has been in the last two years on these issues. In terms of, they have not told me what their plans are because I do not think that they have their plans yet. That is to be resolved. The issue then might be that some of us go into party politics as to what can or should be done before a new Prime Minister is put in place. I have made it clear that I think that we should think carefully about when and how to lodge article 50. For our interests, it is important that we are involved in the negotiations or the discussions and the process prior to article 50 being lodged. That is in our interests. I have given a clear direction to what I think is in the interests of Scotland. I have yet to have an affirmative response on that, but they clearly know our views. I expect to continue those discussions with David Leadington next week. When you describe to David Leadington what Scotland's interests are and what Scotland is looking for in that very early process prior to the triggering of article 50, what are the fundamental points that you intend to make to him? Is it in Scotland's interests, for example, that that is as late as possible, or is there a view about how it should be done that is specific to what the Scottish Government believes to be in our interests? There are different pressures. Clearly, some of you have the legal competence of negotiation with the UK Government, so therefore we need to be part of the UK Government's negotiations and at the table in those discussions. That is why the process of this is important. I think that there is an understanding from the UK Government that that is going to be important, but I have yet to have the yes, this will happen aspect. To be fair, it is a week after. There is turmoil, as much as we are frustrated. I think that we have got to recognise that that will happen, and we need to keep our pressure up. However, in terms of the content and detail of that, that is certainly in terms of looking at our priorities, making sure that we keep as many options open is very important for us. There are different, you will hear in terms of if you pursue questions in that direction, you can have just a straight article 50, or you can have depending on different aspects, whether they want, they do not need to put justifications, rational, et cetera. I think the most important stage is trying to keep our options open, both in the process, but also in what the result might be and what the options, and that is why looking at all the options is very important. We will need to move fairly rapidly, and there is a lot of thinking going on in that, and that is why I think in terms of the membership of the Standing Council on Europe, the experts in there will give us a range, both on the content detail, so for example with Dayman Glover in Science, and she was previously scientific adviser to President Barroso, an understanding of what the priorities in that aspect might be, but it is as much about content, we need to think about content as well as process. The content discussions won't necessarily form the content of article 50 because that's a legal mechanism, but that's why the talks around it are very important and an understanding of what Scotland's position is, and therefore the dialogue that we can have with other members is very important. The discussion is obviously, which I haven't elaborated on, but very quickly and early, our First Minister spoke to the First Minister of Wales and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, and I think it's now two conversations with the T-shirts she's had. And while recognising it early, when you meet Mr Liddington next week, will you be talking to him then about the kind of issues that Scotland will want to address during the negotiations after the triggering of article 50? We were looking at the scope, I mean clearly scoping, although part of this is process and scope, and that's what you always do in initial areas, and that's what we're looking at. I'd like to invite Bruce Crawford. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for coming before us so early. It's useful to hear that some of the background you've outlined earlier, trying to create new relationships, building on existing relationships with the European Union, how best to prosecute the Scottish position. And that twin-track approach is quite obviously important, as far as Scotland is concerned. An interesting word you used about the league calibration with the arrangement with the UK, and as part of that scoping exercise, one of the things that's certainly been exercised in my mind is how flexible the UK might be prepared to be in that scoping exercise in terms of Scotland's position. I wondered whether or not you've yet had the opportunity, or will take that opportunity, with David Llyr next week or sometime in the near future. To discuss with the UK Government whether they're prepared in those negotiations post the triggering of article 50, to find an argument in their position, in their negotiating position, that Scotland can remain? I think there's certainly a goodwill now. I think what you're asking is speculation, and one of the challenges is that we know that there will be a change of personnel within the UK Government, and that makes it very difficult to anticipate what the commitments might be thereafter, and the challenge to the current ministers to say anything that would tie the hands of people who will come after them as early as beginning of September. That's why keeping our options open is important. Therefore, what's essential just now is that we lock in Scotland's interests and role in the process, so that it's very difficult for somebody or unreasonable for somebody coming in if they were so willing to change that. Now, I hope that wouldn't happen. It's also why the voice of Scotland, not just minister to minister and First Minister to Prime Minister, but also at senior civil service level is very important, because, as we know, ministerial positions may change, but the civil service remains. I think that we're having the continuity and the high level. Therefore, within the cabinet office—I don't know if it's a Brexit unit or the minister is in charge of that—we can have a fairly seamless transition from whatever the ministerial team is in the UK Government after the recalibration of their internal elections. That's again why the process of this is very important, so we can try and hit the ground running fairly quickly with whoever comes in as well and establish some principles up front, which I think if we can again get consensus, then that's why, under a statement of a bit of a vacuum across Westminster in opposition as well as government, there's actually a position from Scotland that is reasonable and also has consensus. We'll make that transition from one set of ministers at UK Government to another a bit easier for us, so that's why I think there's a big responsibility in us collectively to make sure that we can achieve that. Okay, just one tiny supplementary to that. Other than political impediments to the UK being prepared to negotiate for Scotland to remain, as well as then Brexit'ing at the same time. Is there any other—is there any reason to stop that happening? No, because at the end of the day, if you want to involve people, you can involve people, and that's—I think so the political will is the most important to achieve that. In terms of our discussions that we have with Europe, we can discuss things, we can understand, and I think it's very important for us to understand the different pressures and interests from other member states in working out what our position is, so we can maximise our position within the UK discussions as well. That's exactly why we have to be able to have a range of discussions, both yes within the United Kingdom position, but also internationally, because the pressures that we may have on some issues may be more important to us than for the rest of the UK. If essential is about how do you retain a membership of a single market? What does freedom of movement look like? I'm particularly on an island which has a common travel area with another island, and that's let alone the dimensions with the Republic of Ireland as well, so therefore I think it's absolutely essential that we're very respectful, not just of our own self-interest and needs, but also of everybody else. Good morning, cabinet secretary. You used the word spirit of consensus at some point earlier on, and so can I at face value take both your words and those of the First Minister that she wasn't seeking to negotiate or position, but simply to bring to the attention of as many people across Europe the outcome of the result here in Scotland, and to thank you for doing that, because I think it's important that it's understood. We are at this stage not really at the stage of probabilities, not even possibly at desirabilities, we are at possibilities, and one thing that slightly struck me in watching an interview that the First Minister gave yesterday with Bernard Ponsonby in Europe was that one of those possibilities seems to me to be that Scotland would remain in the United Kingdom outside of the European Union on the basis of the agreement the United Kingdom finally strikes. Do you accept that that is one of the possibilities, if not one of the desirabilities from your perspective or even necessarily a probability, but it is a possibility? I think it's fair to say that the worst case scenario is that Scotland is outside the EU with no improvement and no options, and any options close down. I think that that would be a very difficult situation for Scotland to be in, because our interests in Europe are long on each side, so I think that that's why I think there's a general consensus saying that we need to try and get movement on this. The degree of movement, we don't know yet, it is uncharted and we don't know the results, but that to me would be a worst case scenario. I think generally across Scotland that would not be ideal. We need to maximise our position. If it's accepted at least as a possibility that Scotland could be in the United Kingdom outside of Europe and on the basis of the agreement which is finally struck, will a parallel effort be given in the arrangements that you strike with the Secretary of State for Scotland and David Lidington or whoever from the foreign office in terms of Scotland's engagement in the discussions that take place, which might lead to that outcome, as well as the effort that you put into as a government, the substantiation of the other options that you have before you? I think it's always helpful going into discussions that you prepare for success rather than failure, and I think we want movement. There may be a scenario which has probably had more airtime, understandably, because people are interested in saying that actually we may get to a position and acknowledged by David Martin, MEP, I think in similar pieces last night, we may get a position that the only way that we can ensure our membership and our relations and our status and our interests in Europe is as an independent country and that may need to happen as a result of the examination of options. Similarly, if you look at the UK's point of view, there may be a situation where they take an extreme position that is so isolationist, it's not even anywhere near the Norwegian model. You've heard Jeremy Hunt talking saying what they should be aiming for is a Norwegian. That's out of Europe, but with a different negotiation. That still has a negotiation with Europe that tries to get something from Europe in terms of a single market access, freedom of movement, et cetera. Now that's on that end of the spectrum of where we might end up. I don't know where on that spectrum we are. I don't even know where the UK wants to get on that area. So for me to try and predict, you said it's never possibilities, but I can understand. So part of our discussions internally with the UK is to try and ensure that they're maximising the position that they have in relation to Europe. I think that will be in our interest, but clearly we have to identify where on the spectrum we can get to with all the options. Some of them will have constitutional requirements, but actually if we focus on the issues of interest of environment, regulations in relation to our products for export, single market, all these areas which I think you can helpfully scope is out. What are the main interests for Scotland? If we identify those issues, thereafter you can identify which is the best constitutional arrangement that would allow us to do that, or what other types of negotiations you can get from that. Now that's kind of pre-empting a lot of where we might end up, but think about it in those terms. So therefore we're not even, you can only start to have a discussion and negotiation with people when you know where they might be coming from. I have absolutely hand on heart, no idea where the UK is coming from and what they're trying to achieve, and frankly we might not even know that till September, and my worry is if they move quickly for an article 50 lodging either now or indeed at the point of a new leader coming in, if we're not in before that, making sure that our voice is heard and that we get a chance to express our views, it will be very difficult afterwards, so that's my positioning. Things may change, we may have to, we have to consider, we've got to renimble and act and be responsive, but we've got to think about all those considerations. I mean I realised time short so I won't seek to drill down on any of that today at all, but can I just finally ask, you said that in due course would come back to Parliament with your conclusion. I mean have you defined in due course in any sense at this stage, is it at the moment as wide as at any point in the next two years during the negotiations that are taking place? I think in terms of making a judgment on options and particularly if the requirement would be for independence referendum, that's the first missus made clear that most certainly that would be a requirement to come back to Parliament, but I think what we have to do is look at the staging posts of how the options are being assessed, how, you know, what possibilities there are, and I'll give you, maybe I'll give you an example of how I personally as cabinet secretary have approached a similar issue which obviously this committee will be interested on the BBC Charter. I had worked very closely with the committee, I made sure that there were debates at appropriate times to have a kind of understanding of where we'd got to at that stage to allow an expression, not just with the individual committee but the wider Parliament. So my commitment certainly is to make sure that at the appropriate points, and that's where your advice will be important, that we can say okay where have we got to this stage. I think certainly coming back into session we may want to, by that time, you know, it'll be in the same week or just shortly before or shortly after a new prime minister is put in place, expressing the views of Scotland at that point again might be helpful depending on where we are, but I also think we should use the committees of this Parliament. One of the strengths of this Parliament has always been the thinking and the cooperation and the drilling down of issues that collectively we can do across the committee. I know we're going into recess but I am absolutely convinced that yourselves and others, as well as the Government will be working very hard during that period to make sure that we're maximising our position. So, you know, we just have to work out the process and I'm sure we can work with your clerks to look at agendas and timetables and processes. Thank you. Can I apologise for the strange noises, cabinet secretary? It's something to do with windows and hydraulics and we are trying to have it fixed, so I'll apologise for that. My understanding is that there's essentially operated, but I've had advice as to how that might be done better, but I will... Security staff have given me some advice on that. I will share with that later. Before I move on to Richard Lochhead, I just wanted to ask a quick supplementary to Jackson Carlaw's question. In terms of the relationship with the UK Government, one of the Conservative Party leadership candidates, Trisa May, today said that she intended if she was successful to set up a Government department that was in charge of Brexit. What are the implications of that for the Scottish Government's involvement in influence in the whole process? I might ask Karen what to come in because obviously that's an operation of White Hall as well, but I did say my remarks that, particularly at a time of change of personal government, making sure that Scotland is not just operating in ministers to ministers, prime ministers to first ministers, but also at a senior level. Scotland has an opportunity within the UK social service set up in this process to make sure that we've got a key position and a key voice to be heard. I think that it's very important, but Karen, do you want to? I think that, in essence, if there is a new department with a new grouping of civil servants, we will engage in the way that we normally do. Already, we have had some very initial high-level contact with the UK Government about arrangements, but it is too early to say how that will play out or what role we will play longer term. We do engage on a regular basis, so how they organise themselves in that regard will be one of the things that we consider, but it won't affect the ongoing relationships that we have. Richard Lockhart. Thank you, convener, and welcome Cabinet Secretary. Firstly, I commend the leadership being shown by the Scottish Government and yourself in terms of making sure that Scotland's voice is heard. Clearly, given the enormity of what we face, there is a monumental amount of work ahead for Parliament and for the Government to make sure that our voice is heard and that Scottish interests are taken forward. First, there is all the work in exploring the options for Scotland to stay in Europe. Secondly, there is the fact that the UK is going to have to negotiate a treaty outlining the terms of withdrawal. Thirdly, there is going to be the agreement and treaty with the EU about a future relationship, and that is a lot of work and a lot of effort required for Scotland's voice to make sure that we are part of all of those levels of negotiations that are going to be taking place. Presumably, at some course, very shortly, the UK civil service is going to be beavering away, preparing to give advice to their ministers, and it is absolutely imperative that Scotland is part of that. There are no working groups set up within Whitehall that Scotland does not know about or that they are not part of. I wondered whether that was something that you would give some thought to, and if you are seeking commitments from the UK Government, Scotland will be part of all those work streams that, behind the scenes, will be beginning in the next few weeks or months. I think that that is important advice from the wisdom experience of Richard Lochhead's understanding of how things work. I know that it is frustrating that people want to immediately say what does a deal look like, what does a negotiation look like in content, but actually trying to get and nail down the processes both at ministerial level and within the civil service is really important. You are right that we have to make sure that our voice is heard yes at EU institutions and yes with member states, but also that somehow we are not considered in any shape or form and afterthought, or that you are presented with fetter company positions on content issues of policies as to issues around withdrawal that do not necessarily meet Scotland's interests, so I think that there are very wise words and thank you for that contribution. My second area of question is that the day-to-day business continues until Scotland exits the EU. Decisions will continue to be taken in Brussels and Luxembourg at the various councils and all the working groups to take place across Europe and this Parliament will be asked to implement those decisions and that day-to-day business will just continue. Therefore we have the issue of how Scotland's voice has been represented in those negotiations because given the way negotiations work in Brussels, if there is no goodwill on both sides of the negotiating table, if you are not seen as very committed to the future of the agreements that have been put in place, then your voice does not count as much as it otherwise would do and that leaves Scotland with an issue given the youth case position is to leave Europe. Therefore I am very very worried about what will happen in terms of our influence over decisions that will be taken that affect many of our communities and our economic sectors in this country over the next two years or however long it takes until Brexit. Therefore is there a case for Scotland to ask for a bigger voice in those negotiations? It is much better to have a pro-European minister leading for the UK delegations in these councils than a minister who wants to leave Europe. That would secure a much better outcome not just for Scotland but for the whole of the UK and also there are other issues like the vacancy for the EU commissioner who is resigned. Why are we not asking for that position to come to Scotland on another island? Well certainly I know for that latter point that the president has appointed somebody else to take on the responsibilities but in terms of country position I think that's still open and I hear what you're saying in regards to that. You're absolutely right. One of the key things we did day to day we were Europeans last week we were Europeans today and we're Europeans tomorrow and we're actually members of the European Union until such times as we're not and our intention is to make sure that Scotland remains our clear position. A lot of our early action was about reassurance and connections with particular sectors and that happened as of Friday to make sure that our ministers across different portfolios were engaging actively in different sectors about what their immediate reaction is, any concerns and how we might address them and help them. That work continues and goes on but you're right in terms of how we can maximise our position. There have been instances which you will certainly be aware of where the UK has known that actually having a UK minister operating in a certain area would be of benefit to the UK's position because the Scottish minister would get a better hearing necessarily than the UK for particular areas and I know that frequently a lot of areas you hear of the conflict that goes on between our position on Europe and the UK's position in different areas but in a lot of other areas actually we can work in parallel on consensus and I think a very good example is in relation to some of the climate change negotiations that we're going on. Therefore I agree with you that we can certainly be arguing and making sure that Scotland can be up front and centre in a lot of the on-going because this is two years still of European councils where decisions are taken. Are a chance of influencing you're absolutely right realistically who's going to want to listen to people who want to leave but actually therefore hearing from people who want to remain to make sure we can maximise our position even within that how much we don't want to lose ground in that two years there's a real risk of that and so therefore in terms of our interests we need to make sure that we can be there and that's why as part of our planning because we did have a plan was to make sure that Fergus Ewing did make sure he was there at the council represent our interests on Monday and we're making sure that our representation as we always had we always try and attend councils where we can and to lead for the UK where we can it's we don't nearly have the opportunity I would want us to have to lead UK positions but I have done so on two or three times I've led for the UK on the digital discussions on the audiovisual council so it's possible and practical and very pragmatic and if you have a hold of ministers who might not even want to be in Brussels at all and I think if it's a choice between having you know somebody who doesn't want to be there UK minister who doesn't want to be there or a permanent representative from the UK as a civil servant or a Scottish minister I think it's far better with an understanding the greed lines and the greed positions that we always go through in these processes that a Scottish minister should be well placed to lead our position and I think that's a very it's just extending what we try and do anyway but as you said it's probably more important in the next two years than perhaps it's been even in the past two years. Thank you very much Tavish Scott. I wonder if I could ask governance actually just for you to just set out what the options are because you rightly described earlier on those and you also said the first minister has stated that all options on the table could you just say for the committee what those are? Well Tavish I would love to be able to tell you that I know as of here and now what all the options are and I think that's why we've set up the Standing Council of on Europe is to make sure that we can have advice as to what those options are. We know that one of those options may be if the only way we can you know retain and remain as part of the European Union is independence that is on the table but there may be other options we've looked at you know people the speculation of you know the Greenland situation the Greenland Denmark situation you know I know certainly from I think it was the liberal democrats position on federalism in terms of looking at that kind of option I know that's been floated by different people whether that could deliver what we know I don't know. There's also the far extreme which is I think where Jackson Kara was alluding to a position when you're out of Europe you're in the United Kingdom but they're taking a very extreme position of being out it they may not end up there I think many people don't I'm not I'm not trying to misrepresent that's what your view is but you've got a spectrum over here which could actually you'll say that there's you're out the single market you're out you know you and because you might not have the have that negotiation we don't know so just as much as I can't speculate at the options at this end of the spectrum of where we're at my end I can't speculate on the other end because we don't know what the position of the UK government is all I'm saying is that we we think there may be there may be options I can't give you definitively that's what the First Minister wants to come back to Parliament was is to let you know what the options may be but that has to be after the thinking time and barely a week after the referendum and and you know only a few days after we've appointed the Standing Council on on Europe to give us choice and range and options I'm not going to sit here and tell you what the solution is I think we've all got to work to the solution but there all I'm saying is I think we should be exploring every option we can I don't know what those options are just now but you know I want to make sure we maximize our position whether it's an influence in the UK and where they are going to be or whether it's identifying what the track might be for Scotland you separately from that or differently from that what I don't know is what the difference might be and that's what the options that's what the options will be presented in terms of what we're expecting from the advice we'll get but let's use all the talents the experience the brains the wisdom and the knowledge in Scotland to get to a solution that you know takes forward and protect Scotland's interests but I can't hear now and I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to be able to give you what those options are do you think that by the end of august it'll be clear what those options are I think it will be it will be clearer but I don't know and I can't give you a definitive because you know we're on we've not got a you know an end game in terms of what what solution we might end up with we know that independence may be the only way we retain and protect those interests but we are absolutely going this going into this with an open mind to look at what other options there might be there might be other and that's genuinely where the heavy lifting and shifting over the next few weeks I think the earlier we can do that the better because as much as we want to close our options you know we want to open our make sure our options are open my worry is once you get into an article 50 process they may close very quickly and that's why you know during the recess period I know there's a lot of work could be carried out by committees as well as the thinking that we've done in the standing council but you know I can't I know people want instant solutions and people are fearing very you know a lot of people very saddened and angered by what's happened and they want to have an immediate that you know there's a way forward I think what's it's important from this place committee parliament and government is that we you know we're determined to find an option I find a route or find options that we can we can make and that's and that's where I think we've managed to make even in what is barely a week extensive process and progress in making that happen can I just ask I think I gathered last night that the first minister has indicated that the government plan to seek external legal advice on the options I absolutely take a point that you can't have them today but but self-evidently it's difficult to know what we're talking about until those options are clear to parliament but it was did I get did I get it right that external legal advice is being sought on that but once we have the advice on the options it would be appropriate to make sure that that has it has legal advice and you probably gathered because you probably watched the same television programmes I did last night there's a little interest in having that advice shared with parliament did you do you agree with that point of view well I mean in terms of as much as we can do we want to be open and transparent and clearly we can you know advise the parliament of the existence of legal advice but you know we're not there yet we haven't got the one we haven't got the advice and you know so I can I understand why people want to make sure that we can be as open and transparent as possible but there are you know I think that's that's a matter for the first minister okay thank you very much just as a supplementary to some of the comments that you've made my understanding is that this the section 50 process one section 50 is enacted you have two years and then a guillotine falls what are the implications of that for scotland and scotland's options well you know there are lots of them that's that's why we need to make sure that you know we maximise the options and you know they might not lodge the 50 the article 50 I think the intention is they will lodge article 50 but you know that's also a possibility and the in terms of the different options you know if the guillotine falls and we're out and we've not maximised our position you know by the end of the two years then we could be in the extreme position that I was talking about and that's why the one thing we can't allow us to be in is that in that extreme position and you know people will make a judgment as to if we if we haven't managed to get a position that reintains scotland's membership by the end of that two years you know scotland will be as part of the united kingdom out of the european union and in that case we would have to potentially ask this parliament to give legislative consent to either the repeal of the the 1972 act or indeed open up the 1998 scotland act can you see any circumstances in which this parliament would give legislative consent to being pulled out of the european union against our will I think politically the parliament if has expressed its view that it wants to remain would find that very difficult indeed and that we're not in that scenario situations yet and you know as I've said I think that we should approach this with a view that we can be successful in what we're going to do if we just plan for failure failures what we'll get and I don't want to be put into that position and I don't think if we as a parliament and as a government should be putting the Scottish people into that position by that time. Thank you very much. Rachel has indicated she wish to ask a question. Welcome cabinet secretary. I just wanted to ask you you used the word failure there. Do you think that we should be preparing ourselves for departure from the EU as well as all the negotiations that you have been making for Scotland to remain? Well we've just gone through a referendum that we didn't want with the results that we didn't want and unfortunately the people who took us there didn't prepare a plan themselves for you know what would be happening in terms of of exit. Our job is to protect the interests of scotland that's what we're trying to do and we're trying to maximise our position you know within that but obviously you know we've got to be very conscious as Richard Lochhead's question was that you know there's a two-year period and how you know the position we get to in two years we need to make sure we're in the best position possible in whatever scenario I absolutely understand that but I do want to make sure we try and make sure that we can get as much for Scotland as we can in that period that's what people would expect for us but you know I just find it very disconcerting as a government minister and having gone through our referendum was you know you might may have liked our white paper in Scotland's future but we at least had a kind of blueprint of what could happen and should happen and very a lot of thought and detail in it I just find it absolutely staggering that we're in this position where you know things are having to be established now even basic stuff in early days I just find it quite quite unbelievable but that's what we're having to cope with and you know that's what we're having to do with and we will try and inform that process as well as we can for Scotland's interests. Just as a brief supplementary to that, when you meet David Lipton to next week will you ask him about UK government plans for preparing and publishing what options there might be in advance of the triggering of article 50? Yeah obviously just as much as we think this government and should be as transparent as we can be similarly we'd expect the UK to keep people informed of where they are and that's very important and perhaps maybe you and thinking about how we do this obviously the convenience relations with the Scotland committee etc and Westminster will be important I'm sure as well in making sure that there's a transparency to what they're doing. Obviously this issue you know is going to have effects across other government portfolios you know and sometimes quite severe effects across those and clearly the Scottish government's taken steps to be sure you know the business community about what might be happening in the future and I know that you've got a business summit planned for next week to sort of engage with them. I'm just wondering what sort of feedback you've had or and maybe have they spoken to you about what their hopes might be for Scotland moving forward. I think what's very striking is that you know once people can have acknowledged and understood and cope with us with the result as people move very quickly to one recognise the very strong leadership of our first minister acting very quickly and rapidly but also very receptive and welcoming to the early approaches from the Scottish government and people are very open minded and in terms of what they can try and do and a willingness to put the Scottish interests first and foremost. I've also I had a meeting with the British Hospitality Association yesterday on my tourism brief and part of our discussion was you know the importance to the tourism industry of our European workers and the European Union workers and the steps they've taken you know as employers individual employers in reassuring their own staff about their welcome and contribution so across a range of portfolios there's impacts to varying and different degrees and I think what's very interesting is you know the response from you know Civic Scotland and also the third sector the private sector to recognising that we all have a job in hand to make sure that we're protecting our workforce and our business interests but also we can try and think about solutions so I think the the capacity and willingness for people to to to help identify what can be done is absolutely there is our job to try and harness that and to bring to bring it to bear to make sure we can influence the discussions going forward. Have another supplementary from Richard Lockhead and then Rose Greer. The answer falls on it well from Ash Denham's question there because why I was wanting to just seek reassurance on it was the fact that in determining the time of deciding the options for Scotland to stay in Europe we have to also bear in mind that the negotiations themselves in the run-up to Brexit could take presumably many years given the enormity of what has to be sorted out in other words there's potential to extend the two-year deadline presumably under article 50 once it's triggered and if it turns out that once the can of worms is open this is going to last for years and years meanwhile there's an impact in Scottish economy uncertainty for EU citizens and across a whole range of aspects of our society so I take it that the government's taking it into account in terms of determining the timescale for deciding on the options for Scotland absolutely we've got to be conscious of the the interests and needs and the you know the the different aspects of of what it means for different sectors I think some areas will want to move more quickly than others for example our universities you will have moved very very quickly in some of their statements and some of the decisions they have to take for example with the EU you know EU students coming in for the 2016 intake and I want to put record my thanks and appreciation to all the higher education institutions for doing that and the ones that have done and I think that's very very important so you'll see different people making different decisions at different points for their their own sexual interests but certainly from the business perspective people want to know that we are open for business we want business we've done very well in terms of our investment we want that to continue but we have to make sure that we're very realistic about what that is so that's why you know we have to make sure that every single portfolio and that's of the Scottish government is making sure that we can maximise our interests and protect Scotland's interests. Thanks to relatively short questions cabinet secretary I'm glad to hear of the immediate engagement with other EU member states does the Scottish government plan on direct engagements with each of the other 27 before what we assume might be the earliest activation of article 50 in September and second question on the council of experts was glad to hear there was an understanding of flexibility in its membership are there specific points in the process and specific individuals in mind for the development of its membership I'm thinking specifically of our remaining MEPs it was good to hear that David Martin's involved but some of our other MEPs have I think quite substantial contributions to make their potential and the first and the first point in relation what was the first question well I'll answer the second question I'll remember the first question and in terms of the membership I'm particularly in relation to our MEPs our first minister met with all the MEPs bar one yesterday and I think you're right we have got talented and talented and experienced there in different areas so certainly their role will be critical and that's you know precisely why the first minister made a point of making sure she could see them yesterday so I can't relay because obviously it's a short time since yesterday is how that mechanism will be and but I understand you have Alan Smith and David Martin who are probably some of the oldest and not gonna say age wise but experienced wise but clearly a former clerk to this committee has been elected and a great deal of experience there as well so and I think you know we have to make sure that we're using all the talents and the first question was in relation to all who we're going to see and when and my experience is that you know it's better to to to secure the meetings and have the meetings and meet with people and then you know report from that I think you know we're not necessarily telegraphing everything we can do because for some countries they may not want that to be telegraphed so that's part of the diplomacy of what we're doing but you know even I know in the next few few days I've already got meetings and appointments that were in train that will help this process as well and they were in train before the referendum but they're more important now so we regularly meet ministers and ambassadors from from other countries and that will continue there'll be a different dimension to them now but that's why the experience that this parliament has has built up and the governments our government and previous governments in positive engagement with the European Union and its institutions will stand as I think in good stead going forward and that is why I think the roles of our MEPs you know Alan Smith and others and David Martin and his experience and others and ministers from different parties at different times means that Scotland's voice can be heard and that's the importance of being pro-European in our outlook and engaged and that's the reputation this parliament has and previous committee the external affairs committee has really helped in making sure that we can actually have that engagement when we need to do it and Scotland's time is now and the time for us to to work together and to draw on that goodwill and translate it into something that is meaningful is now and the seriousness of this I'm sure is not lost on anyone with that thank you very much cabinet secretary that ends this particular evidence session thank you cabinet secretary and mrs watt will now have a short adjournment before our next panel witnesses


Hey, what up bitches?  I have to show y'all.  The game description of 2K18 in Australia.  Build your career in the NBA games. Hit the courts in the playground or join the Pro-Am circuit. They said they got new mind player upgrades and endorsement systems. Did y'all hear what I just told you? This is unbelievable. They have a new upgrading system. That makes me so happy. If we can upgrade our players playing online, it's over. I'm never touching my career. Yo, they're calling Park the playground? I never once went to my friend and said, yo, let's hit the playground. I say let's hit the courts, let's hit the park, let's hit the rack. They're gonna call it the playground? Ah, man. Hey Google, turn the lights on. I gotta be charging my batteries, man. I'm heading to New York. Last time I came, ill-prepared with batteries when I hit LA. It's the lab, baby. It's the lab, baby. Y'all will believe how easy it is to sit down here and just work. When I have an environment like this. You know what I mean?  I'm gonna be back to watch the McGregor fight tonight. But I need a quick scope a little bit and try out this new Call of Duty.  I can't stand these campers. Boom.  Bow, bow. Fuck, man. This is taken. Hey, glitching all over this bitch, man. Boom. I actually got sick of this game, but then I started the quick scope and then changed my opinion on the game, bro. Where they at? You running away? Boom. Where they at, man? Come on, where is it? Boom. Man, that was a good session right there. Man, all right.  I'm watching the Conor McGregor fight. Yo, hold up. Listen, I don't have any affiliation here. I just want a lit-ass fight. I've been watching more and more MMA over the last, like, maybe four or five months. Like, I was really trying to get into jujitsu last year, but, like, it might be the year this year, man. That's actually, that might be a 2018 goal for me for real. All right, man. What's up, people? Listen, y'all saw the title. You're asking questions.  What are you thinking? And then the other group of y'all like agent, you should have already done this. Now, for those of you who don't know, I'm a sport management major. I have one year left in university. I finished three. That boat is making a lot of noise. So, it's not that I do bad. It's not that I don't like the program. It's a lit program. I don't necessarily like the exams. I promise you all the exams are, like, memorizing lists and paragraphs, and then just rewriting them. I forget them the next week, but for the most part, the content that we learn is dope. Like, we have a class on sport marketing or sport with the consumer, and it's lit. Shit, it's stuff that I want to research, that even if I wasn't in the program, I'd still be interested in learning about. And so for three years, it was easy for me. I'm an all-or-nothing kind of guy. It was easy for me to push through the dreadfully boring exam periods.  And it also meant for this channel that around the time 2K launched, it was midterm season for me. So if it wasn't already midterms, I had to have been preparing for them unless I wanted, like, an L. I'm not necessarily, like, dropping, dropping out because it wouldn't make a year left.  I don't know how to spend money like that at night. I need to get the degree. I might be taking one or two online courses at a time. Just chilling. I don't want it at any point to impede what I'm doing right now. Y'all won't believe how stressful it can be to be worried about exams and then at the time uploading daily.  I've been so conflicted because through the school year, I was like, man, I'ma finish the program. I might even go for my masters. And then all of a sudden around October, November, December, things just started to take off for me. And every day, it made less and less sense to continue to be full-time in school. Plus, I'm just enjoying myself.  Like, it's amazing. I'm gonna continue. I'm gonna take my time and no longer is school for me a priority. Some of y'all, like, I don't recommend you do what I do or you don't do what I do. For some of y'all, like, you shouldn't even be. Like, what's the point of wasting all the money?  And then there's others who, like, you probably should be because you need a degree. And I was kinda, yo, a low-key, I was excited to graduate, man. I'm finished three years now, which means I only have one year left. You tell me I only have one year and now I have to wait that much longer for my graduation.  Like, oh, I can't believe you're not going to school for a video game. Like, I'm gonna go to school. Let's play this out for everybody. All right, let's play this. I finished school while I graduate. I killed it in school, right? Which means I'm gonna be eligible for a masters. Let's say I complete the masters. I'm gonna get an entry-level position for, like, $50,000. I'm already making more than that. Or I continue going to school and I spend even more money. I'm even more in debt.   It's not like school's the only place. In fact, I learn more shit outside of school than I do when I'm actually in class. It's unbelievable. Like, when I'm in class, I'm just worried about...  Like, that's what I'm worried about. If I know I don't have to pay attention that day on lecture, I'm not paying attention, period. In fact, in a lot of my lectures, I'm known as the guy who sleeps in class. In the last, like, maybe six or seven months, my videos take a lot longer to complete than they did originally. So I'm saying, like, if I'm gonna be spending more time editing and grinding on this and meeting new people, seeing these new opportunities, like, I can't also be in class. Plus, like, I was living in Niagara, so I don't know if you guys ever been there. It's a cool area, but, like, I just knew I had to be back.   To be honest, I don't even know how long I'm gonna be staying in Canada, man. If I can get my visa next year, so I'm out, I'm out to Houston or L.A. And of course, I have a lot of people telling me, like, you better, you better not quit school. You, you better. I'm like, why does it matter? Like, what is, okay, let's break this down. What is the purpose of going to school? The purpose of going to school is to get a job. If you already have a job that pays well, that is fun as, like, who wouldn't want my job? Which one of you guys? Like, nobody. The answer is I have the best possible job. And at no point ever am I gonna jeopardize that to go back to school to get another job. So, I mean, it's not me trying to explain it to you and convince you, like, I already, there's a bug. There's a lot of spiders here. This isn't me trying to convince you. I already convinced myself. That's what, pretty much, the last six months was me debating whether I should go part-time, whether I should really slow down and just take one or two, or I should continue full-time. So, this will be the first year for me that I don't have to show up to a lecture or I don't have to spend time worrying about an assignment. Yeah, I'm taking one or two online courses, but for the fall, I'm never taking a class in the fall semester, which means the first, like, four or five months of 2K's launch, I won't even be thinking about it. YouTube's a pretty volatile place. Like, one day there's the adpocalypse.    Thinking about it more isn't gonna help me avoid it. Yo, yo! Okay, break this down. Y'all wouldn't believe how stressful it is to every single day upload a video thinking, what are people gonna think this time? Because the second, like, I won't even...   It's like, if I don't show up for a job at the office, my boss and a few co-workers are gonna care. If I don't show up on this, hundreds of thousands of people are gonna be like, yo, where's Agent Nat? If you don't show up for a week, they think you're dead. They're like, yo, they try and check the news and see if there's a report Agent Zero found dead in Toronto. Like, you... So anyway, it's enough of me complaining. I live a pretty good life, man. I can't really... You know, I gotta be pretty happy with what I have. That New York event is actually in a few days. On the 30th, I'm headed on my flight. I'm gonna be there. And I'm gonna come back with some collabs. I'm gonna come back with some lit info. They said we get to play the whole game. They said the shit's gonna be streamed. I haven't asked yet, but I'm gonna see if I can stream it as well. Really, I'm waiting for that because right now, like, there's nothing really to look forward to. I don't think... Are you guys still playing 2K17? So anyway, I just wanna thank y'all, man. This last year has been phenomenal.  Luckily, we'll see how long I can take on stuff. I'm just gonna try every day, man. How about that? And we'll let the results play out. And because I haven't plugged in a while, yo, head to thecomofdistrict.com, man. We got some crazy merch.  So anyway, I'm gonna catch y'all later, man. I don't really know what I want y'all to say.  Alright, I'm gonna get cooked regardless of what happens right now.  I'm birthday nigga. This is some good quality content, man. Hey Google, set the living room lights to 100%.  I just went through trying to watch this fight. Yo, we literally caught the last round because we're like, yo, I'm not gonna pay for the fight, right? So we're gonna go on trying to find a site. Shout out to Is That Boy because he hooked me up last minute. We finally got to see the round, man. But yo, Willie, what do you think about the fight, man?  I went all the way home, got my laptop, came all the way back, and I watched about 47 seconds of it. I don't know where the garbage bag went, but... Yo, Nads, you just wanna stay the night, bro? You're generating me? Oh, that's not what that was at all. Jeez, Willie! Hi, man, productive day. It was a lit day. Low-key cheese that didn't catch that whole Conor McGregor fight. They legitimately have a fight night playlist on Spotify.  Anyway, it's time for me to edit. I'm gonna kick back and play some Tekken 7 real quick. I'm gonna get to some editing. If y'all enjoyed, drop a like. Subscribe if you guys are new. I'm gonna catch y'all later. I'm out. Peace.


How can I be sure that art resin won't ruin my artwork? If you're inexperienced with using resin, I always suggest to test art resin on a non masterpiece first. We've used it on everything, acrylic paint, oil paint, Conte, drawing materials, pastels, sculpture even, rocks. There's nothing you can't use it on, but testing first will help you to learn the process and wind up with a better result in the end. So keep your questions coming in the comment section below. For more FAQ answers, how-to videos and other cool stuff, you can take a look at these and visit artrisen.com for more.


Friday fun breakdown time. We got finished baseball. It's actually called pop-pop-pop-pop something like that.  Basically they said a guy in 1907 visited America watched a baseball game came back to Finland was like guys I heard about this new sport check it out drew out the map you got first base to second base third base back home You got the right shortstop here the left short stops here If you catch the ball on a fly, it's not an out. You have to actually throw it to the base And we got back here with the right fielder and then the left fielder So dude came back from America drew up this sport. They played one game here. It's like I think I got some stuff wrong Like now we like it man. We like it. This is a lot of fun like okay, but this isn't really what I saw It's a little different like okay. Well, this is now our sport here. It is some gameplay They are a lot of advertisements a lot of I don't really know it's It's pretty weird. It's pretty weird, but they like it. They like it So you got to throw the ball up if it hits this plate. It's a strike. It's got to go a certain distance He gets three chances he can swing put it in play and be like nah, I don't like that one He gets three to choose from so here we go. This is this big play here Here we go wax it down the right field line. Oh my god There's a river in play. No fences allowed in Finland. I guess this guy's got to go get wet I wonder if you lose a bet to play right field throws it to that guy.  I'm wet that dude drops it.  He gets it in play.  Look at that mascot. Kind of scary. Yeah, scary for sure This guy's so excited.


The UK has seen a dramatic decrease in contact rates since the implementation of physical distancing measures. Based on data collected from a survey of UK citizens, it appears that the average person now makes 2.8 contacts per day, which is a 74% reduction from the average of 10.8 contacts per day prior to the lockdown. This suggests that the UK's zero value has decreased from 2.6 to 0.62, indicating that the virus is no longer able to spread as quickly due to the physical distancing measures. This article was authored by Christopher I. Jarvis, Kevin Van Zandvoort, Amy Gimmer, and others.


Stand by. Greetings. I'm speaking with you from here in Washington via the satellite channels of WorldNet and Voice of America. This is but another demonstration of the dramatic effect technology is having on our lives. Science is shrinking distances, overcoming obstacles, and opening borders.  We are, as would never have been thought possible a century ago, truly becoming a community, perhaps even a family of free people, united by humane values and democratic ideals and sharing in a prosperity that is closely linked to the trade and commerce between us. Earlier in this century, during a time when fascism and communism were on the rise, there were those who believed that the light of democracy might well be extinguished. It was feared that the era of representative government of political and economic freedom would prove to be a short interlude of history and would disappear just as the democracy of Greece and the Roman Republic had vanished. Well, our cause may have seemed precariously perched, fragile, and without the power projected by strutting troops and mass political spectacles. But it should be clear now that the courage and resilience of free people are too easily underestimated, as is our resolve to cooperate, to see a common purpose and to act together in our own defense. Victor Hugo once wrote, People do not lack strength, they lack will. Well, in my life, I have time and again seen evidence that gives me great confidence that those who live in freedom do indeed have the will to remain free, even under enormous pressure, even against great odds. Those of us who lived through the Second World War saw that in the British people, whose indomitable spirit never broke under heavy bombardment. We saw it in the French troops and resistance fighters who battled to free their homeland, in Polish Home Army soldiers who rose in Warsaw, in the moral heroes throughout the continent, including within Germany itself, who resisted Nazism, often at the cost of their own lives, and others who risked all to save Jews, sometimes perfect strangers from the death camps. We saw it in Normandy, where Americans joined with people from all over Europe to breach the Atlantic Wall and head inland, joined together in one mighty crusade to rid the continent of Hitler's national socialism and all the horrors that went with it. Yes, and in the four decades since the end of the Second World War, the free peoples of the world have continued to prove their courage and, just as important, as never before to demonstrate their solidarity with one another. The North Atlantic Alliance, a lasting triumph of unity and cooperation among free peoples, has maintained peace on the European continent for four decades. It has been the shield of democracy and the greatest deterrent to war in history. Four decades of European peace have been no accident. They have been earned by those in uniform who stood guard and paid for by all of us whose taxes kept our Allied forces manned, equipped, and armed with the conventional and nuclear weapons needed to deter aggression. We all had to do our part, or it wouldn't have worked, but it has worked. The Alliance has been prepared to meet any challenge.  Don't even think about it. And when our will has been tested, we've come together as allies, as people whose destinies are inextricably linked and have acted in unison to meet the challenge. It has not been easy, yet we've done what was necessary to keep our countries free and to preserve the peace. That certainly was true of the Alliance's response to the vast expansion of Soviet military power in the late 1970s, especially their introduction of the new SS-20 in immediate-range missiles. It was in 1977 when the Soviet Union deployed its first SS-20s. This triple-warhead weapon could hit anywhere in Western Europe and much of Asia. Though NATO had no comparable missile to counter this new threat, by August of 1982, the number of Soviet INF missiles had climbed to over 300 with more than 900 warheads. What we were witnessing was an attempt to tip the military balance of power in Europe and erode the security bond between Europe and the United States. It tested our cohesion and could well have had serious, even catastrophic long-term consequences had the Alliance not acted with resolve. But we did act. In December of 1979, Western leaders made the decision to move forward on a two-track approach. First, the United States would negotiate with the Soviets in an attempt to convince them to withdraw their new missiles. Second, as long as the Soviets continued on their course and kept their missiles in place, NATO would deploy in Europe a limited number of Pershing-2 and ground-launched cruise missiles. What the Alliance sought, however, were fewer missiles, not more. Our plan depended upon unflagging solidarity and steadfastness of purpose even under immense pressure, and the pressure was put on. At the nuclear freeze in unilateral disarmament protesters won, Europe would now be condemned to live under the shadow of Soviet nuclear-armed INF missiles. To democracy's credit, the political courage of farsighted European leaders carried the day. That resolve has now made it possible to achieve an historic agreement, an agreement that will eliminate a whole class of United States and Soviet INF missiles from the face of the planet. The agreement we are now hearing is based upon the proposal that the United States, in full consultation with Allied leaders, put forward in 1981, the zero option. The plan will require the Soviets to remove four times as many nuclear warheads as the United States. Not only will the entire Soviet force of SS-20s and SS-4s be destroyed, but also the shorter-range SS-12s and SS-23s, it will be the first mutual reduction of the world's nuclear arsenals in history. And more than that, the shorter-range Soviet missiles that will be eliminated are capable of carrying not just nuclear but also chemical and conventional warheads. Thus we will be making a promising start in cutting back these threats to Europe as well. Things like this are not the result of wishful thinking, nor are they made more likely by loud proclamations of a desire for peace. Lasting progress derives from hard-nosed realism, strenuous effort, and firmness of principle. I can assure you that any treaty I sign will be realistic and in the long-term interest of all the members of the alliance, or no agreement, will be signed. The Soviet Union, for example, has a poor record of compliance with past arms control agreements, so any new treaty will contain ironclad provisions for effective verification, including on-site inspection of facilities before and during reductions and short notice inspections afterward. The verification regime we've put forward is the most stringent in the history of arms control negotiations. One of us in the alliance can settle for anything less. Arms reduction, if done with care to ensure the continuing credibility of our deterrent, both nuclear and conventional, is in the interest of all Western countries. And any INF agreement should be viewed not as the end of the process, but the beginning, a first big step. We in the Soviets have also been negotiating possible reductions in our strategic arsenals, which for us is a high priority. Again, it's an American proposal that is the centerpiece of the negotiation, a dramatic proposition to cut our strategic arsenals in half. Considerable progress has been made and further movement can be expected if Soviet flexibility is evident. What is totally unacceptable, however, is the Soviet tactic of holding these offensive reductions hostage to measures that would cripple our strategic defense initiative. We won't bargain away SDI, which offers the promise of a safer world in which both sides would rely more on defenses which threaten no one than on offensive forces. It shouldn't escape our attention that the Soviets themselves have been spending billions on a strategic defense program of their own. Much has been heard as of late about reforms being instituted within the Soviet Union. Glasnost, we are told, is ushering in a new era. Well, who cannot but hope these reports are true, that the optimism is justified. Good sense, however, dictates that we look for tangible changes in behavior, for action, not words, in deciding what is real or illusionary. We will, for example, closely watch the condition of human rights within the Soviet Union. It is difficult to imagine that a government that continues to repress freedom in its own country, breaking faith with its own people, can be trusted to keep agreements with others. Yes, this year some people, including a few very prominent individuals, were permitted to leave the Soviet Union. It's better than the record of recent years, yet many more emigration and divided family cases remain. So let us remember, denial of the right to emigrate is only a small part of the problem of the repressive Soviet system. A recognition of freedom of speech, religion and press, a release of all prisoners of conscience, an ending of the practice of sending perfectly sane political dissidents to psychiatric hospitals, tolerance of real opposition, and freedom of political choice. These things, which we all take for granted, would signal that a true turning point has been reached and would offer hope of positive changes in the international arena as well. If there's one observation that rings true in today's changing world, it is that freedom and peace go hand in hand. The further the Soviet leadership opens their system and frees their people, the more likely it will be that the tensions between East and West will lessen. Reflecting this, we also hope to see changes in Soviet foreign policy. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan is most certainly a dreadful quagmire. The Afghan people have proven themselves the bravest of the brave. They will continue to have the sympathy and support of free nations in their struggle for independence. Soviet leaders can win accolades from people of goodwill everywhere and free their country from a no-win situation by grounding their helicopter gunships promptly withdrawing their troops and permitting the Afghan people to choose their own destiny. Such actions would be viewed not as a retreat, but as a courageous and positive step. Another sign to look for, this one closer to home for you on your side of the Atlantic, would be a loosening of the Soviet hold over Eastern Europe. Why should the peoples of Europe remain divided as they are with barbed wire, watchtowers, and machine guns? Why shouldn't all Europeans be free to travel, to visit one another, or to conduct business with each other? Shouldn't the Brezhnev doctrine finally be renounced? Four decades after the war, why should 17 million Germans be treated like prisoners in their own land? A true opening up and recognition of their sovereign independence would be welcomed by all the peoples of Eastern and Central Europe, and it would not threaten the security of the Soviet Union or anyone else. A few months ago, I visited Berlin. I stood there alongside the cruel wall that symbolizes so powerfully the scar that divides the European continent. It's time for that wound to heal and that scar to disappear. Wouldn't it be a wonderful sight for the world to see if someday General Secretary Gorbachev and I could meet in Berlin and together take down the first bricks of that wall? And we could continue taking down walls until the distrust between our peoples and the scars of the past are forgotten. A few moments ago, I recalled the valiant fight 40 years ago to liberate the European continent. Who cannot help but appreciate that? In that epic struggle, the peoples of the Soviet Union fought bravely and sacrificed so immensely to defeat the common enemy. After the war, we became adversaries, at times bitter adversaries. Yet this need not have happened and need not continue. Any philosophy or leader suggesting that there is a predetermined course of history and the conflict between our peoples and systems is inevitable is wrong. We are not condemned by forces beyond our control. We, all peoples in every land, can shape the world in which we live and determine the future. We in the Western democracies have been doing just that. Together we've built a freer and more prosperous way of life, a community of free people. I'm certain you agree with me that the door is open to all who would join with us. German literary figure Heinrich Heine has written, Do not mock our dreamers. Their words become the seeds of freedom. Well, today our vision not only of a more peaceful world, but of a world of freedom in which democratic rights are enjoyed in every land seems ever more in focus, almost as if it is within reach. We will continue to watch and to be hopeful, yet we must also remain vigilant. The strength and viability of the alliance remains essential, even as an agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union opens new opportunities for peace. It is just such strength as NATO has demonstrated that is a precondition to such progress. Weakness, vulnerability, and wishful thinking can undo what has been accomplished by standing firm. This, nevertheless, can be a time of great change. As you're likely aware, General Secretary Gorbachev has accepted my invitation to come to Washington for a summit in early December. We'll be discussing face to face, the wide spectrum of issues I've spoken to you about today. I, in fact, expect we'll sign that agreement concerning U.S. and Soviet INF missiles during the time of our meetings. For our part, the commitment of the United States to the alliance and of the security of Europe, INF Treaty or no INF Treaty, remains unshakable. Over 300,000 American servicemen with you on the continent and our steadfast nuclear guarantee underscore this pledge. Those who worry that we will somehow drift apart or that deterrence has been weakened are mistaken on both counts. Our ties will be strengthened, not diminished, by this success. Such an historic reduction in nuclear weapons as now appears on the way will be a resounding vindication of the unity, strength, and determination of the alliance. As far as our ability to keep the peace, the NATO strategy of flexible response will continue to ensure that aggression at any level is blocked. A viable deterrent force of nuclear weapons of many types, including ground-based systems, as well as those carried by aircraft and submarines, still protects Europe and remains in place. And we've agreed with our allies that the existing imbalances in conventional forces and chemical weapons must be redressed prior to any further nuclear reductions in Europe. The alliance has had underway for some time a program of modernizing our forces so that a credible deterrent is maintained over the long term. That is why major initiatives are moving forward to upgrade NATO's conventional strength. And after 18 years of unilaterally refraining from any production of chemical weapons, improvements are being made in our modest chemical weapon inventory. The Soviet Union, of course, possesses what is by far the world's most extensive chemical weapons stockpile. But just as we're doing in our INF talks, we are also seeking through negotiation to correct the disparities we face in both the chemical and conventional areas. In fact, in 1984, the United States with allied support proposed an effective global ban on chemical weapons. As far as conventional forces, the alliance stands ready if the east meets us halfway to make reductions in central Europe through mutual balanced forced reductions or MBFR as they are called. At the same time in Vienna, an agreement between east and west is being sought that would mandate new negotiations on conventional stability from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains. Our common security agenda, as you can see, is broad and ambitious. An INF agreement is an important first step but only the first one toward our greater goal. And let there be no doubt, the citizens of the United States fully understand and appreciate that we are partners for peace with you, the peoples of our fellow Western democracies. That's why we applaud what we see as a new willingness, even eagerness on the part of some of our allies to increase the level of cooperation and coordination among themselves in European defense. The growing cooperation between France and Germany is a positive sign as is the modernization of the British and French independent nuclear deterrence which are both vital components of the Western security system. Last week, the foreign and defense ministers of the Western European Union issued an impressive declaration. It reaffirmed the importance of maintaining our nuclear and conventional deterrence and affirmed a positive Western European identity in the field of defense within the framework of the Atlantic Alliance. We welcome these developments. Over these last four decades, all too often the United States has been viewed as the senior partner of the Alliance. Well today, when the economic strength of Western Europe and the United States are fully comparable, a time has long since come when we will view ourselves as equal partners. And a more equal relationship should not diminish our bonds, but strengthen them. It should not limit our potential, but expand it. Kurti, the soul of German literature once wrote, if you would create something, you must be something. Well, in these last four decades, the people of the United States and Europe have been a force for progress and freedom on this planet. And only a few short years from now, as mankind literally enters into a new millennium, we will have laid the foundation for a prosperous and free future. We've proven wrong, dead wrong, those doubters and despots who earlier in this century thought democracy was soon to be extinct. We have ensured that in the centuries ahead, it is free people who will dominate the affairs of mankind. And let me predict that someday, the realm of liberty and justice will encompass the planet. Freedom is not just the birthright of the few. It is the God-given right of all his children in every country. It won't come by conquest. It will come because freedom is right and freedom works. It will come because cooperation and goodwill among free people will carry the day. There's a story that was brought to my attention a few years ago about an elderly couple who live in the small town of Marstau on the island of Arrow in Denmark, Natalia and Nels Mortensen. For the last 40 years, they have tended the grave of a young man they'd never met. They dig the weeds and place flowers and always there's a small American flag. When it becomes worn, they replace it with another. They're watching over the final resting place of U.S. Air Force Sergeant Jack Wagner, who died when his plane was shot down on June 20th, 1944, near Arrow. We just ran out of time on our tape for 20 minutes and we're gonna have to change tapes and start. I'm all right. Okay, stand by. Gerta, the soul of German literature once wrote, if you would create something, you must be something. Well, in these last four decades, the people of the United States and Europe have been a force for progress and freedom on this planet. And only a few short years from now as mankind literally enters into a new millennium, we will have laid the foundation for a prosperous and free future. We've proven wrong, dead wrong, those doubters and despots who earlier in this century thought democracy was soon to be extinct. We have ensured that in the centuries ahead it is free people who will dominate the affairs of mankind. And let me predict that someday the realm of liberty and justice will encompass the planet. Freedom is not just the birthright of the few, it's the God-given right of all his children in every country. It won't come by conquest. It will come because freedom is right and freedom works. It will come because cooperation and goodwill among free people will carry the day. There's a story that was brought to my attention a few years ago about an elderly couple who live in the small town of Marstau on the island of Arrow in Denmark, Natalia and Nells Mortensen. For the last 40 years, they've tended the grave of a young man they never met. They dig the weeds and place flowers and always there's a small American flag. When it becomes worn, they replace it with another. They are watching over the final resting place of U.S. Air Force Sergeant Jack Wagner who died when his plane was shot down on June 20th, 1944, near Arrow which was then occupied territory. Jack Wagner's body washed up on shore a few days later and the word quickly spread through the tiny community. When the Nazi occupation troops came to bury the young American, they found nearly the whole town of 2,000 had been waiting by the grave since early in the morning to pay tribute to the young flier. The path had been lined with flowers and when the troops laid young Jack Wagner in his grave, the townspeople conducted a funeral service and placed red, white and blue flowers on his grave along with a banner that read, thank you for what you have done. Jack was a 19 year old American from Snyder County, Pennsylvania. The Danish townspeople had never met him but they knew this young man had given his life for them. He cared enough for people he'd never met to make the supreme sacrifice for their freedom. The Mortensen's never forgot this. They still care for that grave as if he was a member of their family. And in a way he was, just as we are, all part of the family of free people. Many young people from all of our countries have died to preserve the freedom we now enjoy. Many of our children still serve. They stand together on the ramparts of freedom. We care about each and every one of them as if he or she was our own. Let us be as brave as they are brave, as proud as they are proud. Thank you for letting me share these moments with you. God bless you.


When we sample a signal, turning it into a discrete time signal, we are effectively throwing away some of the information about that signal. We only know what it is doing at the point where we sampled it. Between those points, anything could be going on. The DFT tests our signal with cosine and sine waves at many different frequencies to find out which frequencies are present in the signal. However, once the test frequency is high enough so that it has time to complete more than half a cycle between two sampled points, as far as the DFT is concerned, because it doesn't know what is happening between two sampled points, the higher test frequency looks exactly the same as a similar much lower frequency and it thinks the higher frequency is also present in the signal. This is why the frequency domain representation of a discrete time domain signal is periodic around odd multiples of half the sampling rate.


The Ministry of Health on Monday, 29th March 2021, recommenced the phases 1A and 1B of the COVID-19 vaccination drive. Throughout this week, people are encouraged to pre-register ahead of time via the online platform hmi.govt.lc or at the Community Wellness Center nearest to you. You are asked to walk with a form of identification to facilitate the registration process. Also, walk with a light snack and water given the waiting time to get vaccinated. The vaccination sites will be open from 9am to 4pm on Tuesday 30th March 2021. Vaccination will take place at the Zufair Primary School and the VG Spots Complex. In the coming days, the Ministry of Health will provide more information on other vaccination sites around the island.