The ECOWAS Court of Justice restrains the federal government from prosecuting Twitter users. And a federal lawmaker, Farouk Lawan, is sentenced to seven years imprisonment for taking bribes of $500,000. This is PLOS Politics and I am the Sao-Gi-Oh! Welcome once again to PLOS Politics. The ECOWAS Court of Justice in Abuja has restrained the federal government from imposing sanctions, harassing, intimidating, arresting or prosecuting Twitter users pending the hearing and determination of the suit filed against the government by the Social Economic Rights and Accountability Project CERAP. The suit argues that a suspension of Twitter in Nigeria and criminalization of Nigerians using Twitter has escalated the repression of human rights and restricted the rights of Nigerians to freedom of expression, access to information and media freedom in the country. Meanwhile, the Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed, has said that the federal government's ban on Twitter's operations was in the country's interest. Joining us this evening to discuss this is Riyo Dari Atoye and Leonard Ibute, both political analyst. Thank you both for joining us. Good to have you here. I'm going to start with Mr. Dari Atoye who's joining us via Zoom. Good evening, can you hear us? Yes, thank you for having me. Thanks for joining us. All right, so you were at the seat in yesterday and I got to see a few of the clips from that sitting. So quickly share with us what took place there and what your views are from the ECOWAS judgment to, of course, the reaction from the Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed. Well, thank you very much again for this opportunity. Yeah, I was invited by a couple of journalists yesterday when I got there and the House Committee on Information said it was an investigative year in not a public one. However, I insisted that as a citizen of the Republic of Nigeria and indeed as one of the people paying the salaries of our federal lawmakers that I have the right to make my own contribution and I was partially allowed to do so even though I was ruled out of order by the chairman of the committee. We sedentally was the one who drafted the NBC, the contentious NBC bill. I think what we had from Alagi Lai Mohammed was also indirectly summarized by one of the lawmakers that the aggregate of what we've seen so far could be pointing to, you know, a totalitarian state brewing. And it's important just like I also said yesterday that I told the Alagi Lai Mohammed that no Nigerians, Nigerians that I know that has pursued independence of the media that the media should not be censored. The media should not be gagged like Alagi Lai Mohammed when it was in opposition. Of course the facts are there before the public statements are there in terms of speaking and defending the right of the media not to be censored, not to be regulated. Well today Alagi Lai Mohammed is in the saddle and I think it is also the responsibility of Nigerians not to also allow Alagi Lai Mohammed, you know, to lead the government of general worry to gag Nigerians and also undermine free speech. And I must say that the ruling by the ECOWAS Court is a welcome development. We have to protect this democracy and I think that ruling but trust one thing. You know, government will go, government will come but this country will remain and it seems it's important that democracy should continue to travel not just in Nigeria but also in Africa. And that court actually recognized the right of Nigerians to free speech and the right of Nigerians to make use of Twitter and such order was like I say in order. And some of us believe that the appropriating has been done even though the government either has said that they are going to obey it. But the most important thing is that order was made and was made in the overall interest of Nigeria.  Some of the things he was doing then but today Hitler is an outcast globally. So basically what the government is pursuing, Nigerians must not allow it. And we also have to be worried that a government that's an outgoing government is trying to gag Nigeria and he's totally unacceptable. All right, hold on Mr. Toei. I'm going to move to Leonard Ibute. One of the statements of course accredited at the Minister of Information is that this actions is, you know, are being taken in Nigeria's interest. You know, some people of course agree with him. There's people who have also made statements like Twitter insulted President Mohammed Al-Bawari and of course insulted Nigeria as a country. So what's your reaction to the ruling by Ekoas and also do you agree with the Minister of Information? The last question is more difficult to answer. The first one is straightforward. It's a legal ruling. I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure legal arguments were presented, analyzed and the judges came to a good conclusion. If the conclusion had been to the contrary, it would have been suspicious because there's a common sense that guides law. And so to that extent I agree with Toei and also with the court that it is wanting to say you don't want Twitter operating in Nigeria. It's a different thing to outlaw Nigerians using Twitter because it's a web platform. And to the extent, I might be in Japan, I might be in Kenya, but I have a Nigerian account and so you can, I mean, it doesn't really make sense from a tech point of view and also from the point of view of the fact that Twitter is not directly a Nigerian thing. You can use Twitter to talk about America and Japan and so on. So it doesn't make sense to prosecute Nigerians for using Twitter. But it is a company, it is a business operating in Nigeria and to that extent the laws can apply to say for XYZ raising national security, whatever you don't want them operational at the moment. Coming to Lai Mohamed's comment about the legality of the issue or about his view on the issue, for example. That's a more difficult argument from an analyst's point of view. All of you would know that I'm not a big celebrator of Lai Mohamed. But we all know it is on debatable that social media platforms are the highest sources of disinformation, false information, misinformation, lies and so on. And even the assent of the present government was built on social media lies. So it was with Trump, so it was with a lot of other agencies and peoples and institutions that use falsehood and lies and disinformation to pursue political or business objectives. So it is a truism that this medium of communication is the highest brewer of falsehood. Now if the whole world agrees and even the social media platforms agree that the two they have can be dangerous and therefore they have put some regulatory tools in place to outlaw certain communications, ban certain communications, remove certain communications, censor certain communications as it were, why is it then difficult? Why is it then such a tenuous topic for us to agree that maybe there should be some regulatory framework around this infinitely supreme source of falsehood and misinformation and lies? I mean this is an argument that intelligent people need to want to have, but when it looks like any regulation on social media is a violation of freedom of information, why are you regulated as plus TV? Why is the NTA regulated? Why are newspapers regulated? We need to have authentic true sources of truth, knowing that if it's coming out of this agency there is a logic applied. So even if it is false we know the logic of the lie, we know the logic of the falsehood, but when you create an avenue that reaches more people than the regular media, but it is an open source avenue where everybody puts everything they want with serious significant national security effect and even humanitarian effect, then that leaves a lot to be desired. And I think intelligent arguments need to be heard in that direction. Okay, so now let's hopefully have some of those intelligent arguments. Aria Dari, I know you're itching to say something. Lionel de Boute is speaking about some level of regulation, not necessarily falling in line 100% with Lai Muhammad, the minister of information, but agrees that there should be some level of regulation and it shouldn't be seen immediately as gagging the media. What do you think? I think Lionel has said that he's not a lawyer, probably if you look into the law books of the country, definitely we've found a lot of laws that actually can apply. And we have the cyber crime act that this government has been using, even though some of us are still contesting the section 24 of that very act. However, let me say this, I want my dear brother, Lionel, to tell me one single lie in the social media space like Twitter that has lasted 24 hours without being debunked. That's number one. Number two, what other countries have done is to engage Twitter for that in terms of if they have something concerning how to properly regulate or how to some of his tricks. I mean, some of his rules in terms of sensory information that are prejudicial or that are injurious to the people. And what we've seen so far is just an attempt to look for every opportunity to decide what the people says. And we must be very careful not to allow the president to see himself as the state, because that's exactly what happened when the tweet of a president, you know, because the tweet of a president was deleted for making what you call a genocide remark. And now they are appropriated as that's of the concern of the entire country. No, it's not so. That is an authoritarian, an authoritarianism that is being and we must be given into that. So I want Lionel to understand that some of these companies, the government have no problem that government should engage them have no problem that there should be some sort of regulations. Nationally, but not that the regulation that to be done just because to protect the interest of the ruling elite. There is a difference between protecting the interest of the ruling class or the ruling elite and the common people. And I can I can tell you that not this government is not doing this simply because they love the common man, but because the ego of the president has been produced. That was why they didn't bother when they were in the opposition. And there was no headline when these guys were in opposition. And my brother did not do a test to that. They went beyond everything. If the previous government had done what they are trying to do now, probably they wouldn't have won the 2015 elections. That's why we have to be very careful about this country. True, true, true. So while we can have a conversation around the timing of the current situation, right? That Buhari's tweets were removed by Twitter and therefore there's a reactionary measure from the government. Yeah, that's fine. There's also the Ansar's angle. So the signaling effect of that is negative and that we can argue that maybe the current government doesn't have the credibility to take the current measures. That's a separate argument, right? But if we stand on the body of truth and facts in itself, I mean, Trump was a sitting president and his tweets were censored and removed and all of that. America didn't ban Twitter because America also recognizes the good aspects of Twitter and all of that. But there are also other countries that will argue that the depth of maturity of the American democracy and general institution to handle that kind of whatever doesn't exist in other nations. And my question to the lawyers and all these other guys is this.  Well, I think there is already some of those acts in play, but Twitter is not going to call the Nigerian police to arrest anybody in Nigeria. Good point. So when the Nigerian government therefore says that the actions or inactions of both Twitter and Twitter users hurts national security and they present you. This is because when Lyme was talking yesterday, he wasn't talking about the issue that he raised, which was that Buhari's tweet was removed. He was saying that the suspicion from the Nigerian government is that that platform was being used to compromise Nigeria's national security. The question I expect people to have been asking me is how? What are the key areas that it has happened? And it is not the removal of Buhari's tweet that transcends national security. Maybe they have other information and I absolutely believe that forums like that actually do because that is how Boko Haram and Al Qaeda are radicalizing people. So it is, in fact, as much as I don't like like Muhammad and his antics and all of that, we need to actually investigate to say, is this true for the problem moment? So if we remove the credibility of the current government to address this issue as they are doing it, we have a real issue at hand that any serious government needs to address. Mr Atoy, you're going to step in next. I also want us to speak about the relevance of the hearing and where you think that would lead. But the presence of Twitter also exists. Twitter is also present in countries that have ISIS and have Al Qaeda and have some of all those countries and they still have been able to have some level of control. So if you look back just a little bit, the challenges that Nigeria government has had with Twitter are mostly by the answers protest and then they've mentioned Namdi Kanwan and the likes. I really quickly respond to that with the time we have and then quickly also tell us about the relevance of this hearing, where you think this will lead? Well, number one, I don't expect anything significant from this hearing because it's been a very narrow arena without listening to experts, listening to the public, listening to lawyers and even people who are opinion-moulders. You know, investigating and listening to Lime Muhammad alone without allowing the public hearing is totally uncalled for. Now, I just want to make clarification for my brother Luna to understand with her. Look at what Sheikh Gumi has been saying. Imagine it is Obada Milafia that is saying the same thing that Gumi is saying today who have been invited. So you can't trust the judgment of those people. What we must understand is that as long as we have the constitution, the constitution as the supreme document, as long as the constitution has protected someone, I don't expect us to try to strengthen this government to make some obnoxious law that will totally undermine everyone. One thing we must understand is that the only way to counter all this falsehood in the social media space is for more people to be aware, to have agents, to always be alert with their responsibility and debunk this news. And it's been happening every day, every day without season. And there is no limit to it. You can't relate some of these things that we're talking about. People who continue to make falsehood will continue to say or manner of wrong things. But I can tell you is to empower and strengthen this society is to become more aware and more educated and people will be able to counter some of these things. Nobody even spread some of these falsehood like the people in government. What do you do when a government reps inside to spread falsehood? They are not going to do anything against it. Like I said, Shegumi is today telling us that it is less harmful to kidnap children than for iPod to attack or let them attack these people. Yet it's nothing as affected, nothing has happened to you. Alright, let's now move on to speaking about the precedents that this sets. There's people who have mentioned that this sets a bad precedent for future Nigerian governments. You know, we as a people always like to do a thing where we say, well, you know, the previous government did it. Well, it happened in, you know, Basan just time. It happened during Yaduah's time. So, you know, we may as well ignore it now. So do you fear that this sets a bad precedent, you know, for future governments in Nigeria after 2023? Well, let me say, I'm not saying, I mean, indeed, indeed, that's why we are Nigerians are resistant. The fact that Nigerians are resistant this period would definitely help us ahead of 2023 or post 2023. And people have to be very, very careful. When you see some certain things that are being, I am a forecaster. I also have the capacity sometimes to reason along the line and just like you there, everybody, when you look at some of the things you have, some of these dots together, some certain things are not gelling. For instance, a government, an outgoing government that is held bent at regulating the social media and gargling free speech. An outgoing government that want to make Loretta or not chair, you know, to put Loretta or not chair in INEC. An outgoing government that is doing some certain things that Nigerians cannot understand. We have to be very careful. However, I think that Nigerians must rise up to say no to it because this government in opposition supported Nigerians, you know, in rejecting every attempt to gargling free speech, it has not started today and it's not going to stop even after this government. The most important thing is for Nigerians to want to defend their fundamental human rights. However, there must also be information for people to know how to defend their rights and also for people to be strengthened enough in terms of some of the things we are talking about here. And look, we have plus severe Africa here. People would definitely know where to look for superior information. When there is falsehood, people sometimes will turn into plus severe Africa, they want to know maybe this is true or not. They can turn it to another station and the people know how to fact check. Let's not give these things as if people only make some of these untruthful statements without all sorts of resistance. Like I said again, I repeat, no falsehood has lasted 24 hours that I know. People are always quick to debunk it, except if you don't want to listen to it. And the greatest problem today that we have are from Bandit, Boko Haram. This government has not come out to tell us that Bandit are using social media. They have not come to tell us that this Bandit or Boko Haram are using the social media. They have not. The only thing is whether I've seen something like more or less like Igbophobia, where they only talked about ESN and iPop and see that's the only problem that we have here. We must not allow this kind of narrative. I don't support the killing of policemen, the burning of institutions, I reject it, I condemn it. Whether it's behind either iPop or ECN, they should be prosecuted and brought to proof. But we must not allow this Igbophobia coloration. It is totally bad and unacceptable because the only thing that Lange Lyman said yesterday was talking about is ESN, iPop, and see that is the only problem that we have as a nation. It's totally unacceptable. So I appreciate what Steeve Africa is doing. We listen to this Steeve station and the agents get educated. That is not to say we must allow this dangerous narrative of people saying that social media is bad. I have my concern at times, but I'm happy that people are always there. I have seen foreign media, ABC, and all of them giving news that are totally false and they come to come and reverse themselves. That is the way it is. That's the point. All right, Leonardo, but I think you can wrap up this conversation. In a world where we think that any form of censorship of social media is an attack on free speech is a dangerous world. Because that is a world that has recognized that this is the single biggest source of false information, misinformation, and it's undoubted. It's fact. But we feel that any form of regulation, any form from any government, I'm not talking about the credibility of the current government to regulate it. That's a different matter.  But the truth is the whole world agrees from America to China agrees that this is the greatest source of falsehood, disinformation, misinformation ever. But to then say that any government that attempts to any means to at least put some sanity is an attack on free speech is juvenile in my view. Because plus TV is there as a source of truth. CNN is there as a source of truth. Channel's TV is there when they make a mistake, they come back to recant their apologize and all of these things. Nigerians don't watch these channels. They feed on the lies from social media. And when I say Nigerians, I mean the whole world. But what you're describing now, it seems like 70% of the content of social media is false. And that's not true. I don't know the percentage of falsehood. But on political information, that percentage is much higher than 80%. Not necessarily. If you have numbers, you can throw it at me. If you have numbers, you can throw it at me. But what I know is that if you categorize other sources of mass media and you put social media on one side, it is the greatest source of misinformation, falsehood and lies. Yes, but at the same time. If we agree that that is the premise. But every other source of mass media is regulated. Yet we have a phobia for regulating the greatest source of misinformation and lies. There is something deficient about that logic. See, I am for free speech. I am for free speech. You know that I'm not a fan of anything that affects the use of the government of this country, including the current government. I've been here to talk about Lai Mohamed and his position on the answers protest before. You know that I'm not a big fan. And I want us as Nigerians. He says he's not going to government and I absolutely agree. So why are we not looking at these whole issues in the context of a Nigeria instead of just the present government? And when we think like that, we'll probably see some sense in the fact that we cannot allow ourselves to go to setting rat holes because we don't have regulation, but we have a government that is constrained to give us national security objectives. And as a result of that, they need to now frown on certain things when we don't have enabling laws for them to do that. So those of you that are lawyers, you probably need to have a more open-minded view of these things. Mr. Atoye, I can squeeze in 30 seconds for you to say what you think about that.  Is that enough to want it immediately regulated? To some level? At all. I just want to refer my brother to bullet theory. You should go and read about the bullet theory of the mass media. Probably we understand what we're talking about there. The issue of the media being accused of falsehood, of peddling falsehood. I've always been there. And one thing we want people to understand is this. This social media thing is when it favors some people, it's good. When it favors, when it's not in your favor, it's bad. And we have to stop it. We need to have enough in the country. The whole world would disagree with you on that point, Mr. Atoye. Go on, Mr. Atoye. The whole world would disagree with you on that. Hold on, please. Go on, Mr. Atoye. I want to say this. Like I said, this country has a bond dance laws that are regulated. Some of these are referred into the Cybercrime Act section 24. Probably you should go and read it. This government has prosecuted people based on their posting on Facebook and Twitter. They've prosecuted people. A lot of cases are in court. So that's why I don't understand what my brother there is saying. What this government is looking for is to control speech, not the censorship. If it is censorship, if there are rules and regulations in a bond dance, that's why I don't understand what Leonard is saying here. People are in court being prosecuted by the same government for what they post. People are being jailed in the same country. So it means that there are rules and there are laws in place. It's to control our speech. What to say? Don't say this and don't say that.  All right. Ariyo, Dari, Atoye, thank you very much. And of course, thank you for your service also. I'm guessing you're also going to continue following up with the hearings and seeing where it leads. So thank you very much for joining us this evening on Plus Politics. Thank you for having me. Absolutely. Leonard Ebute, thank you also. Yeah, thanks. I appreciate it. Get to hear your perspective. Thank you for staying with us. We take a short break now and when we return, we discuss how we can reduce court and trial processes in Nigeria using Farouk Lawan as a case study. We'll be right back.


Hey everybody, it's Brian and this is our 23rd video on C++ programming. The question was raised, why would you create a class using a pointer? That's a very good question. I kind of want to cover this because it's something that I actually wrestled with for a while. You see we've got just a simple one file template here with the cat class and our main function. The cat class just has a public variable called age. What we're going to do here is we're going to say cat and we'll call it mcat. Equal new cat and then we're going to say mcat age and we'll say the age is zero. We haven't really set it yet. Then we are going to just see out mcat age and L. Now why would you want to do any of this? Let's delete this real quick before we forget and have a memory leak program this small. It won't really make a difference but it's always good form. We're going to make a function called do set age and we're going to say it takes a pointer to the cat object. Actually, we should probably use the correct notation p is shorthand for pointer to. We're just going to say pcat age and this is where we'll actually set the correct age. Let's actually just give it another parameter here. We'll say mh. Now when we call this function we have to give it two parameters. We'll say do age and we're going to give it the pointer to the cat object we created. Let's say we want to set this cat to 12 years old. Let's just do another c out so we can see the values actually changing. Let's review real quick before we run this. We're going to create a new cat object out on the heap or the free store. We're going to set the age to zero. We're just going to print out that we've set it to zero. Then we're going to call this do set age with a pointer to the cat class and the age of 12. Then we're just going to print out that we have set the age and then delete the object from memory because we don't need it. This looks simple but it's actually very complex what's going on under the hood here. The main function that we're currently in, this is the scope of execution. Meaning this is the current stack. Once it jumps into do set age, this is the scope of execution or more to the point. This is the stack and then it jumps back out and executes this code. Really what you could say is this being broken up into three parts. This is being executed. This is being executed. Then this is being executed. The problem with that is once you're in the do set age scope, you have no way of grabbing these variables. For example, if you take this MCAT that we've previously created and try doing something, you can't access it. Let's say age equal 99. Try running this and see what happens here. It's going to explode and it's going to say MCAT undeclared identifier. You don't know what that is because you only have PCAT and MH. These are the only variables allowed in this scope because we don't have any references or pointers to anything else. You basically create your object out on the free store, out on the heap. Then once the execution scope jumps into the do set age, you can still grab it using the pointer. That's what we're doing here is we're saying PCAT MH or PCAT age equals MH. What we're saying is grab that pointer out in memory and use it. For that, let's actually do one more little thing here. Let's just say at and let's just copy this and we'll say set at pH. I want to show you that this is the same memory address. That way there's really no confusion about what's going on after this tutorial because this threw me off for a long time when I was learning this. Let's actually get rid of that real quick here. That way we can see what's going on. Run this. We have some error messages. MCAT undeclared identifier. This goes right back to what we were just talking about. Here's our program. You see it starts with zero and it creates the cat object at this memory address. This is 00344FD8 and then it sets it to 12 and it's at. Now this is the do set cat right here. Remember we said set at. Notice it's the same memory address and then we jump back into the main function and notice it's the same address. That cat object is out in memory somewhere and no matter what scope we're in we can still grab and use it. Now I know some of you are sitting back knowing, wait a minute I remember we learned this and you can pass it by value or by reference. Why don't you just pass everything by reference? The problem with that comes in.  Under the hood when you pass it by reference you are passing a pointer. You just don't see the pointer and you don't have to play around with it. Is there a correct way and a non-correct way? No, they're both tools. Use the right tool for the job. We could have very easily used a pass by reference here. Remember using the ampersand, pass by reference. The ampersand I should note simply means address of. So you are passing the address of that cat variable. Or in other words you're passing it a pointer. This is Brian. I hope you found this video educational and entertaining and thank you for watching.


Now, we are going to look at a very important concept in NGN, that is, different operators, different service providers come together to accommodate inter-operator traffic exchange to allow a wide array of users to communicate with each other. The very notion of Federation is important, not only to the world but also to NGN. Here we look at how the Federation is realized in the context of NGNs and how specifically peering takes place between the group of operators. Federation as a formal concept was taken up by the SIP peering working group in the ITF. It defines peering in Federation as a group of service providers which are willing to agree to share information with each other on behalf of their users via the session initiation protocol. This helps them to come on a unified platform for settlement in terms of tariffs, the policies and rules which they implement, and the technology that they use. It helps them to establish seamless interconnections. Federation actually is nothing but a like-minded membership with operators having similar network technologies, more or less similar topologies. Their sizes are also comparable and the business strategies that they use are also quite similar. Since these operators come close to each other to exchange the traffic, so the most natural choice for them to exchange the traffic type is the voice over IP. This leads us to the concept of voice over IP peering that is establishing groups, multicast groups or unicast groups within the Federation to exchange traffic. Now, the concept of Federation and peering helps them to achieve the reduction in overall management costs in bilateral agreements. In voice over IP, the concept of peering is different. First of all, the voice over IP peering actually means that it is not a peer-to-peer connection. It means it is not between two end hosts, rather it is between two members of a Federation which come together and utilize a common NM based directory to exchange information for their voice over IP users on the SIP platform. Using the concept of peering, they come with some natural advantages. First, this helps them to implement controlled routing. Controlled routing is quite similar to the concept of strict source routing in IP version 4. It is an extension feature which was available in IP version 4 right from the RFC but it was hardly utilized because the ISPs wanted their users to enjoy some flexibility. But having a controlled routing actually encourages limited interaction only between the peering members in the same Federation. So essentially the hardware or the switches that belong to these providers establish virtual circuits or dedicated connections amongst themselves. Then the concept of next hop routing is used in these networks to allow the peering networks to share information with each other in the shortest possible manner. This helps them to achieve better network coverage and reachability. It is quite similar to the PSTN routing model in which the dialing number and the dial number are connected through the nearest group of intermediate exchanges. Now it is also important to appreciate that when we talk about the concept of federation and voice peering, we need to understand if the world has given it due attention. So first of all, we will start with that although it offers immense cross-platform interoperability because different hardware and software based network and service providers as long as they agree to use SIP and NM directories, any IP session from any computer or any network to any computer on any network can be realized. And the application could be any application from any vendor as long as it is implementing voice over IP that is compliant with SIP. With all these features, it is expected that this model of federation and voice peering should take over the market. But experience tells that it's not exactly as such because the middle man, which is the regional and the global ISPs are not dead yet. So they do keep their share or they do keep their business interests in mind. So the concept of absolute peering is not possible as it is desired. But we can't stop to appreciate what all additional benefits we can get from the peering and federation. This certainly helps us to reduce the concept of PSTNs and we can obviate the classical kind of circuit switching in which we'd have dedicated call termination, settlement and management infrastructure in which the calling party and call party have to be more strictly dovetailed with each other. Here it's quite flexible. The voice over IP peering platforms actually allow not only voice over IP as in audio visual chat but for video streaming as such, for exchanging messages for the push to talk services and even online games. All these can be realized through the voice over IP peering in the federation.


I can't even lie y'all and maybe it's because I'm always on high alert because we've seen so many people just try to Troll and Okie-dokie people with these fake Adam Schefter accounts and these fake Ian rapper poor counseling just these fake reporter accounts When I first saw this somebody tagged me in it and I didn't think it was real. I thought it was fake So I looked at it and then I looked and I actually saw a check mark next to Adam Schefter's name and I said whoa Okay now and this Not a shocker not it not a shocker at all And this Eric the costa just this this is one I could get behind Now this this is a trade of a player who apparently wasn't gonna make the Ross in and been breaded sinned as somebody who's been very very quiet We have not had not heard much of anything For the entirety of his career with the radio. I know it's been a short career It's only been a couple years, but we haven't really heard anything with him or from him for the entirety of his time with the Ravens And it was all the bends we and we knew all the bends weren't gonna make the roster Ravens had been powers who looks like he's gonna end up being a starter left guard They drafted Ben Cleveland Who looks like he could take over as a starter and left guard in a little while not right away? And then they had been breaded sinned who we just really hadn't heard much of anything from especially when it came To the competition for that left guard spot But now hey, he can compete for a left guard spot up in New York Because the Ravens have traded been breaded sin to the Giants and it also said that it was it's an exchange of picks That's going down to Which picks they are? We it does not say yet Maybe they end up trading. I know they traded with the Dolphins when they got rid of Greg Mance I think they traded like a 7 4 6 and then the Dolphins would take the player So we'll see what it is with this one.  It's not gonna be anything crazy.  Wow And the Giants they've been pretty active making trades with offensive linemen because they just traded for um I think what Billy Price from the Bengals, I believe so the Giants They they must see some little holes here and there on their offensive line to where they want to bring in some more help Bring in some more competition and bring in some more guys who they feel can compete to really make because you want to For your offensive line because that's where everything starts That's where your whole offense starts everything. So as many pieces as you added for Daniel Jones like a Kyle Rudolph like Cadarius Tony like From the Lions Kenny Galladay Seyquan coming back from that season in the injury last year and I know there's more that I'm missing So my apologies don't they have still have Sterling Sheppard I think they do but anyway for as many pieces that as Daniel Jones has around him You can't use them if you don't have any offensive line You can't if you don't have any good offensive linemen and Daniel Jones gonna be on his back every play so This is smart by the Giants to try to really just re-up on Offensive linemen because you got to put the best product out there that you possibly can Because this is your quarterback and you want to get the best out of him. So give him the best Anyway a team keep it clean appreciate y'all. I love y'all and the Ravens are down a bin They're down a bin. They started with three now. We're down to two bins And may the best been win. So just like Ben Bredesen is now when it comes to his time with the Ravens I'm out


First Minister Some Questions, question number one from Ruth Davidson. I start by offering the thoughts of myself, I'm sure the whole chamber, to everyone affected by the horrific events at Grenfell Tower in London yesterday, to offer my thanks to those who responded, and those who continue to respond today. To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. We have all been horrified by the tragic events in London this week. I'm sure the thoughts of the whole Parliament are with everyone affected and in particular with those who have lost loved ones. I also want to record my gratitude and appreciation to the emergency services who have been responding and who continue to respond. The investigation into this fire is clearly at a very early stage and while there appear to be very serious questions to be answered, we must be careful not to speculate at this stage. That said, members will wish to know that the local government minister has this morning discussed the fire with local authority colleagues. A ministerial group will also be convened to review Scottish regulations and to ensure that we are standing ready to take any actions necessary as lessons are learned from this catastrophic fire, but in the meantime our thoughts remain with all those affected. Later today, Presiding Officer, I will have engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Ruth Davidson Last week, the SNP lost half a million votes and 21 MPs. This, after the First Minister had put her plan for a second independence referendum as early as next year at the heart of her campaign. With the benefit of hindsight, does she now think that that was a mistake? First Minister Last week, the SNP won the election in Scotland. We won more seats than all the other parties in this chamber put together. Of course, we achieved that result, having been clear in our view that the people of Scotland should have a choice at the end of the Brexit process. However, I have also made clear that I will now reflect on that position, not just in light of how people in Scotland voted, but also in light of what the election UK-wide now means for the Brexit process. I will set out my views on that once I have had the time to properly consider the interests, not just of my own party but of Scotland as a whole. Given the results of the election UK-wide, it is a dereliction of duty for Ruth Davidson or any other politician to be focusing only on what might happen at the end of a Brexit process and not on what is about to happen in just four days' time. On Monday, this hapless UK Government is about to start a formal negotiation with the EU, with no mandate for its hard Brexit position, no consensus even within its own ranks about what it is trying to achieve, let alone in the country more widely. In just four days' time, we are going to be led off the cliff edge by a Tory Government devoid of legitimacy and credibility and utterly clueless about what it is trying to achieve. That is the real and present danger to Scottish jobs, investment and living standards, so any politician with a national interest rather than just party interests at heart will be focused on trying to protect Scotland from a disaster that the Tories are in the process of leading us into, and that is what I am focused on doing. The Surgeon talks about Scotland's national interest at heart. Thursday's election was not the only test of public opinion in the last week. Today, fully 60 per cent of people in Scotland say that they do not want a second independence referendum, more than double the number who back on it. Indeed, even a third of yes voters say that they do not want a referendum, so it is a pretty simple question. In the light of the election result last week, does not the First Minister think that she should listen to them? Of course, 62 per cent of people in Scotland did not want the Tory Brexit, but the Tories do not appear to be interested in listening to that. I have already said that I will reflect on all of those factors in deciding what in my view is the best way forward now, not just for my party or any party within this chamber but for the country as a whole. That is the right and proper thing to do. I do not think that anybody in Scotland should be taking any lectures from the Conservative Party. Let us just recap for a moment on what the Tories have managed to do to the UK in the space of just one year. Firstly, calling a divisive and unnecessary EU referendum entirely for reasons of Conservative Party management, having lost that gamble and pursuing a hard Brexit path, purely to appease the right wing of the Conservative Party—as if that was not enough—calling an unnecessary general election purely in the self-interest of the Conservative Party and having mucked up that campaign, it is now putting the country in hawk to the DUP. That is what the Tories have done in the space of less than a year, jeopardised the economic security of the UK, running the risk of making the UK a laughing stock internationally and, as if that was not bad enough, putting the Irish peace process at risk into the bargain. What a shower of charlatans the Tories are and nobody could take any lessons from them. Ruth Davidson It is the same every single time. Ask her for a referendum plan and she hides behind her Brexit bogeyman, but let's hear what the message is. The message has been from this First Minister on her referendum plan. It's hunkered out. It's attacked anyone who asks for a little bit of clarity and hope that none of us notice that they are pressing on regardless. Will we all remember what happened after the Brexit vote last summer within hours of the result, hours of it? The First Minister pounced to put a second independence referendum on the table, yet this week, when independence is under threat, she suddenly insists that it must be wrong to take a knee-jerk decision—total double standards. Presiding Officer, some of our colleagues—some of our colleagues—some of our colleagues, like Alec Neal, understand it. He says that we should recognise that Andy Riff 2 is not going to happen in the lifetime of this Scottish Parliament session, and if he gets the public mood, why can't she? The First Minister Which people deserve from me and are going to get from me over the next few days is some calm reflection. However, let me say—I think that what Ruth Davidson has just demonstrated there today and what she is increasingly demonstrating to the Scottish people is that she is nothing more than a one-track pony. Having to confront any issue other than an independence referendum, she is left floundering. Ruth Davidson has asked for clarity. Is not it the case that people in Scotland have a right to expect some clarity from the Conservatives about what is due to happen not in some month's time but in four days' time? Perhaps Ruth Davidson, the next time she gets to her feet, will give us some clarity around those issues. Is Ruth Davidson's position today that we should be in the single market or out of the single market? Is her position that we should be in the customs union or out of the customs union? Or is her position exactly what her position has been over the past year that she will do exactly what Theresa May tells her to do regardless of what is in the best interests of the country? I will give Ruth Davidson a chance to prove that she has any ability to think independently on those matters. In and out of the single market, in and out of the customs union, why do not we get some clarity on a negotiation that is about to start in four days' time? I apologise for raising her referendum threat today, because, given that she will not even talk to her cabinet about it, I thought that she might like to hear what her plan actually is. First of all, the First Minister talks about decisions that are made in the best interests of Scotland, but does she not realise that that is precisely what we did in 2014? The majority of people in Scotland believe that staying in the UK is in the best interests of Scotland. Let us cut to the chase today. This has got nothing to do with listening to the people. It is all about how she can find a way to reflow or rebrand her sinking dream of independence. The people of Scotland just want to put it behind us. We just want to put it behind us. She says that she is listening to the folk of Scotland, and so she should. Her referendum is not wanted, so will she ditch it now? Everybody watching this will notice that Ruth Davidson completely dodged all the issues about what is confronting this country in four days' time. From me, people will get the calm reflection in the national interest that I have promised, but I say this again. This country, in four days' time, is facing the prospect of being taken off a cliff edge by a Tory Government in Westminster that does not have a clue what it is doing. That is completely unacceptable. I think that what people in Scotland want to know from Ruth Davidson is what is her position on those vital issues, because Scottish jobs depend on it, Scottish investment depends on it, Scottish living standards depend on it. I will continue to stand up for Scotland and Scottish interests on Brexit and on every other matter, while the Tories simply do whatever they are told to do by their bosses in London. Can I add the heartfelt condolences of those benches to everyone affected by the events at Grenfell Tower? Once again, we find ourselves in awe of the heroics of the emergency services. I think that we all looked on with horror, anger and dismay and shared a collective desire to make sure that everything that can be done is being done to prevent future tragedies like this. In that spirit, I strongly urge the First Minister to listen to the concerns of the Fire Brigades Union. Can I ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the week? Engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. In last week's election, voters sent the First Minister a clear message to focus on what really matters to people. The First Minister still pretends that education has always been her top priority, but we all know that her Government has presided over 4,000 fewer teachers, while class sizes are up. Scotland is falling down international league tables and parents are being asked to fill in in the classroom. While she has taken her eye off the ball, we have had college lecturers on strike and now even teachers are threatening industrial action. The First Minister cannot blame negative media coverage for this. Why is it always someone else's fault and never hers? I have to say on that, with the greatest respect Kezia Dugdale is talking nonsense. This Government, as will be demonstrated when the Deputy First Minister outlines to Parliament this afternoon the next stage in our education reform programme, we take full responsibility for making sure that we equip our education system to race standards and close the attainment gap. That is why we have in place the new national improvement framework. That is why we have in place the new attainment fund, including the pupil equity fund, that has put £120 million directly into the hands of head teachers. This afternoon, the Deputy First Minister will outline the outcome of the governance review, which will include steps to make sure that we have a school system that puts schools, teachers, head teachers and pupils absolutely at the centre of the system. Kezia Dugdale raised the important issue of the recent college dispute, and that gives me the opportunity to set out my clear expectations on that. Agreement was reached on 19 May that allowed the strike to be called off, and that was extremely welcome. Discussions have continued since then around some outstanding issues. However, I am very clear that what was agreed on 19 May now needs to be fully implemented. I spoke to the chair of the employers association yesterday. The employers association will meet again on Monday and will be asked to ratify the agreement that was already reached, including payment of the first instalment of the cash settlement. I hope and expect that that ratification will take place on Monday and that any further prospect of strike action is removed completely. Kezia Dugdale The problem for the First Minister is that this week the EIS union revealed what teachers really think about Scotland's education system. Their workload has increased and fewer than half would recommend teaching as a career. There is a recruitment crisis with hundreds of vacancies, some of which will take up to three years to fill. New figures reveal that teachers are receiving up to £6,000 less than they should if their pay had risen in line with inflation. It is little wonder that teachers are saying enough is enough. What will the First Minister say to teachers who are struggling in our schools? Can I suggest that sorry might be a good place to start? The First Minister What we will continue to do is investing with local authorities to make sure that we maintain teacher numbers and put more resources into the hands of head teachers to equip them to better respond to challenges that they face in the schools. The Deputy First Minister will continue to work to take the action to reduce unnecessary workload on the part of teachers. That is why the SQA and Education Scotland are already reducing and clarifying the guidance that they provide to teachers. Education Scotland has already published clear advice for teachers and on what they should and should not be expected to do in the classroom. Definitive benchmark guidance on literacy and numeracy has already been published. In fact, benchmarks for all the curriculum areas have now been published replacing a much larger volume of existing material. We will continue to get on with responding to the challenges that we face by taking the action that we are taking. That is what responsible governments are expected to do and that is what this Government will continue to do. Kezia Dugdale I think that response from the SNP backbench says it all, because never has the First Minister sounded so out of touch with the reality on the ground. The truth is that the First Minister has taken teachers for granted for years and now they are threatening strike action just to get John Swinney to sit up and pay attention. Of course, the SNP's answer to this crisis is to send untrained teachers into our classrooms, to introduce league tables and high-stakes testing into primary schools, and she has even flirted with opt-out schools, each and every one a failed Tory policy. Does not this just prove, First Minister, that if you vote SNP, you get Tory? First Minister. I highly advise some people in Scotland to vote a bit rich and no wonder Kezia Dugdale is blushing right now, but let's get back to the serious matters. It's simply not sufficient for Kezia Dugdale just to come here and make it up as she goes along. There is no question whatsoever of untrained teachers being in schools in Scotland. John Swinney will set out the position of the Government on all aspects of the Governance Review later this afternoon, but we will continue to get on with the job of reforming and investing in Scottish education. It is extra money to help teachers with the job that they do, the reforms that are necessary to ensure improvements in our schools and to ensure that politicians are held much more to account because of the greater transparency that we are introducing into the system. What is striking again today, as it has been so often in the past in this chamber, is that whenever we come forward with policies, ideas and initiatives to address those challenges, all Labour does is oppose them. It never brings forward any constructive ideas of its own, which is probably why, Presiding Officer, for the first general Westminster election in living memory, Labour came third. That is the reality of Labour in Scotland today, as the SNP continues to get on with the job. I have a couple of constituency supplementaries. The first is from Bob Doris. Presiding Officer, I extended my sympathies to everyone impacted by the horrific and deeply shocking events of the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy. First Minister, my constituency of Mary Helen Springburn has several high-rise tower blocks. There will be many MSPs in this chamber, with similar stock right across there. I also know that my local housing association will place a significant priority on safety, including fire safety, but that will not stop those living in such properties having understandable concerns. Although I welcome the steps that are already taken by the First Minister outlined today, does the First Minister agree with me that we must ensure the most appropriate and rigorous fire safety regulations that are possible are in place? That will reassure worried householders, but that we must also ensure that whatever lessons must be learned from the Grenfell tragedy in the weeks and months ahead, that they are also learned and acted upon here in Scotland. I agree very much with Bob Doris. I know that many members across the chamber, perhaps in particular members such as Bob Doris and myself, who represent urban constituencies with high-rise flats within them, will feel particularly concerned at the tragic events that we have seen in London this week. As I said earlier, while I think that there are the most serious questions to be answered in the case of this tragic fire, given how early a stage of the investigation is at, it is important that we do not rush to judgment or early speculation about the causes of that fire. Nevertheless, I am acutely aware of the responsibility that the Scottish Government bears here. We must stand ready to provide whatever reassurance we can to people across Scotland who are living in similar accommodation and who may have very understandable concerns as a result of what we have seen this week. We must also stand ready to learn any lessons that are required to be learned as the causes of this fire become clearer. That is why the local government minister had those early discussions with local authority partners this morning. We will also discuss those matters, particularly around fire safety and regulation with the Scottish Fire Service. The ministerial group that I referred to will be convened to make sure that, on an on-going basis and in as close to real time as possible, we are learning any lessons that have to be learned and taking whatever steps in Scotland required to be taken. Any member who has a constituency interest in this—I know that all members have a very human interest in this—but any member who has a particular constituency interest in this, we would be happy to keep very closely updated on any steps that the Scottish Government considers are appropriate. Liam Kerr Yesterday, a press and general report revealed that an Aberdeen man had died following a 999 call handler error last month. Information regarding the call had not been passed to the dispatch team, and by the time the error was realised, an ambulance was dispatched, 33 minutes had passed. Tragically, the man had passed away. What action reported about this tragic case? First and foremost, my heartfelt sympathies are with the family and friends of the individual who has sadly passed away. This case is under investigation by the Scottish Ambulance Service. The health secretary has already spoken to the chief executive of the Scottish Ambulance Service to seek and get assurances that there will be a full and proper investigation. Given that that investigation is under way, it would not be appropriate for me to go into any more detail or speculate on the outcome of that. However, the health secretary would be happy to correspond further with the member when we have more detail as a result of the investigation that is currently under way. Tavish Scott Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister will be aware that the energy regulator of GEM and SSC have announced this week the closure of the Lerwick power station with the loss of 25 permanent jobs and apprenticeships. They are to replace the power station with a cable importing wind from Cathness, but that cable will not allow large-scale renewables to be exported from Shetland. Will the First Minister ask of GEM to consider how such an ill-conceived proposal has seen the light of day? The First Minister I am very happy to ask the relevant minister to discuss this further with GEM. We are aware of the proposed new energy solution for Shetland, which would seek to connect Shetland to the Scottish mainland for the first time, while also having some diesel supply on island. Although aspects of that contribute to our approach to cleaner energy, there are also understandable concerns about the security of supply and the issues around export that Tavish Scott referred to. That has been brought forward by the Scottish and Southern electricity networks and has also been overseen by Of GEM, which is an independent regulator. I recognise the concerns that Tavish Scott is expressing on behalf of his constituents. I will ask the relevant minister to speak with Of GEM to make sure that those concerns are conveyed and to have further discussions with Tavish Scott as a result of that. Question 3, Patrick Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. May I add my concern and that of my party for those affected by the shocking events at Grenfell Tower and our concern for those already suffering, grieving or worrying still about friends and relatives and fearing the worst? And may I ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet? The Cabinet will next meet on Tuesday. Patrick Harvie. Two weeks ago, the Government's consultation on fracking and unconventional gas was closed. It has been reported that there are tens of thousands of responses and the First Minister may already be in a position to confirm whether that is one of the biggest public responses to a Government consultation ever. Since it closed, even more concerns have been raised on the health impacts of fracking with reports of over 150 studies linking the chemicals used in the fracking industry to cancer risk, to permanent lung damage, for example by exposing workers to benzene and silica dust, among other substances. Those concerns extend to the wider public health fears. The temporary moratorium, which has been in place for a year and a half and which we know cannot last for the long term, the Government knows that it is going to have to make a decision. They have previously given a commitment that a final decision on a full ban will be made by the end of this calendar year. Now that the consultation is closed, can I ask the First Minister to confirm that timetable and give a clear commitment that the decision will be made and a vote brought to Parliament before the end of this year? That is the timetable that we continue to work to, and let me also restate our commitment to bringing a vote to Parliament. We said that when we launched the consultation and nothing has changed about that. Patrick Harvie asked me specifically about the scale of the consultation responses. I think that it is important to say that final numbers are still being confirmed through the validation and verification process, but in the region of 60,000 responses have been received. A considerable number of those responses have been via postcard and petition campaigns, but it is important—I am sure that Patrick Harvie will agree with this—that we now properly analyse those consultation responses and use that as the factor that we will take into account when reaching a final decision. Patrick Harvie is right that there is absolutely no doubt about that. A moratorium by its very nature is temporary, and we have always said that that moratorium is in place pending a final decision on the substantive issue. It is also important to recognise that the reason that we have taken this very cautious and precautionary approach is exactly because of those concerns that Patrick Harvie has outlined. There are many people with a range of different concerns about fracking, from environmental to health to transport concerns. None of those concerns could or should ever have been brushed aside, so that is why we are taking that approach and we will continue to do that and take into account all those views and concerns. The final point that I would make is to reassure people that, while the process is under way, that moratorium remains in place. What that means is that no fracking or drilling for co-bed methane can take place in Scotland until the outcome of the process. I am pleased that the extraordinary number of responses will demonstrate the breadth of concern about that issue. I am pleased that that number of responses will not be used as an excuse to delay the process. Of course, there needs to be analysis of those responses, but we need clarity, and every one of those 60,000 people deserves clarity that the decision will be made this year. There will be widespread expectation that that decision will be for a full and permanent ban on those techniques. The SNP's 2016 manifesto said that we will not allow fracking or underground coal gasification in Scotland unless it can be proved beyond any doubt that it will not harm our environment, communities or public health. Since the publication of that document, we still see SNP activists campaigning wearing frack-off badges, and we hear SNP politicians saying things like, it's time to bring to an end the Tory days of gung-ho fracking policies in Scotland, or jobs, water quality, food and drink would all be unnecessarily put at risk comments, which clearly are incompatible with a positive decision to give the green light to those techniques. Does the First Minister also agree that if Brexit goes ahead as the UK Government plans, it will mean that a huge number of the environmental controls and protections that will affect this industry and many others that threaten public health in Scotland will be decided here? Can we seek a clear and absolute guarantee that not one of those regulations will be downgraded, watered down or weakened in Scotland? To take the latter part of Patrick Harvie's question first, I think that even our harshest critic would suggest that the concern about the watering down of environmental regulations post-Brexit is not a concern that people should have about this Government, it is certainly a concern that people should have about the current UK Government. We take environmental protection and regulation very seriously. Indeed, one of my many concerns about the Brexit process is the fact that we will see a fragmentation of that environmental protection through the process of the UK leaving the EU. Back to the issue of fracking, I would have thought that Patrick Harvie would have welcomed the fact that he is able to quote so many members of the SNP agreeing with his position. I have described myself previously and would continue to do so as somebody who is personally very sceptical about fracking for many of the reasons that Patrick Harvie has outlined. What we said in our manifesto around this absolutely stands, and that is the standard by which we will assess this issue. We have embarked on a process of consultation, which of course follows the process of expert research work that we did into a range of those issues. It is vital that we conclude that with all due process and in good faith. We will do that in the timescale that we set out and come to a final decision in that timescale. Lastly, as I said in my first answer, people in Scotland can be assured that, depending on the outcome of the process, there will be no fracking in Scotland. That is why the moratorium at the moment is so important. I thank you, Presiding Officer. Roaming charges within the EU have been abolished from today, meaning that we do not get billed excessive amounts for making calls and sending text messages abroad. Has the Scottish Government had any assurances from the UK Government that they will work to preserve this benefit from Brexit negotiations? To the best of my knowledge, absolutely no assurances from the UK Government on what is a very important issue for people who use mobile phones in other European countries. There is no doubt that the abolition of roaming charges is one of many benefits arising from the digital single market, and it is vitally important that Scottish consumers continue to benefit from this post-Brexit. In spite of continued lack of meaningful engagement on the part of the UK Government on any of those matters, the Scottish Government will continue to engage in good faith to ensure that our interests are represented as those negotiations get under way, as I would remind the chamber in just four days' time. Question 4, James Dornan. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to support LGBT rights. First Minister. I am very proud of this Government's record on LGBTI rights, including the introduction of civil partnerships and now equal marriage for same-sex couples. We have robust and inclusive hate crime legislation in place. We have established the LGBTI inclusive education working group and we also intend to reform gender recognition law. Those actions are why Scotland continues to be ranked as one of the most progressive countries in Europe regarding LGBTI equality. Of course, it is not just the actions that we take for those living in Scotland that are important, but also our willingness to stand up for LGBTI rights across the world, something that this Government is determined to continue to do. James Dornan. I thank the First Minister for that answer. The First Minister will be aware that the LGBTI pride celebrations are happening across Scotland this month and in Belfast next month. At the same time, the Tories in a desperate attempt to cling on to power at Westminster will be dealing with the DUP who have used their veto to block legalising same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland a total of five times. Does the First Minister share my concerns about the message that this arrangement sends out to members of the LGBTI community, along with many others, and does she agree with me that that just highlights the importance of complete transparency with any proposed Tory deal with the DUP before it is signed and sealed? Let me make a number of points. The first one before I make it, let me recognise up front that the issue of same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland is one to be decided by politicians in Northern Ireland. It is not one for decision in this Parliament, but I think that it is regrettable that Northern Ireland is now the only part of the UK where loving same-sex couples cannot get married as they can in England, Wales and Scotland. I certainly would hope that we see that change for the better in the not-too-distant future. The second point that I would make is to record my deep-seated concern. I believe the deep-seated concern of many, not just in Scotland but across the UK right now, at the prospect of some kind of grubby deal between the Tories and the DUP to allow Theresa May to cling to office. I have just listened to Ruth Davidson talking about the national interest. I do not think that that kind of deal, particularly if it is not completely and utterly transparent, is in the national interest in any way, shape or form. I say that not just because of some of the views of the DUP that perhaps not all of us but many of us feel deeply uncomfortable about. I also say that because of a real concern about the disregard that is being shown for the Northern Irish peace process. I think that one of the most shameful aspects of the whole Brexit process, from the beginning to now, has been the disregard shown by many for that peace process. Under the Good Friday agreement, the UK Government is meant to be an impartial broker in Northern Ireland, and I think that there is a real question— First Minister, so this is about LGBT rights, please. John Major and others raised about whether that can be the case. I think that those matters are serious. I have seen this morning some suggestion that the deal, if there is a deal, between the Tories and the DUP will not be published in full. I think that that would be completely unacceptable. John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, in September of 2015, the Scottish Government received a letter from Marlion Fraser, the present leader of the Democratic Unionist Party. Then our capacity as a Government Minister, and it was about Scotland's equal marriage legislation, my colleague Claire Bailey, Green MLA for South Belfast, describes us as part of Mrs Foster's anti-equality offensive. Rather than hide behind freedom of information, will you publish that letter? First Minister. I am happy to give consideration to that. My understanding is that that letter was about the translation of civil partnerships into marriages here, so I am certainly happy to consider that. The commitment of this Government—I believe that it is something that we should celebrate—is that this is a commitment shared across this Parliament to equality is beyond any question. We are responsible for our own actions in this regard, but on issues like equality, whether it is LGBTI equality or any other aspect of equality, the importance not just of doing the right thing at home but of standing up for the right thing in other countries and the world over is also important. That is a responsibility that I am very aware of. Question 5, Peter Chapman. I refer members to my register of interest. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the Audit Scotland update on the CARP futures programme. One of those days, I am going to ask Peter Chapman to tell me which particular page of his register of interest he is referring to on those matters. Over the past year, we have made significant changes to the development and implementation of the CARP futures programme. Clearly, there is a lot more for us to do, but I welcome that the update report from Audit Scotland recognises some of the progress that we have made and reinforces the actions that we have taken since last May. We will now consider carefully the findings in the context of the significant improvement activity that is already under way. Peter Chapman. I am grateful to the First Minister for that answer. I have to say that I am absolutely shocked at how complacent the First Minister is here. Let me be clear that farming communities are not so relaxed about the issues that she is. This IT system has already created the worst farming crisis in a generation. Now we have learned that there is still no backup system. Should this IT system fail, there is the possibility of a £60 million in EU fines for non-compliance, and yet more money is needed to get the system working. Farmers across Scotland are still waiting for 2015 and 2016 payments, and worst of all, we face at least another year of this chaos until this system is fully compliant. In light of the cut-lug of errors, does the First Minister take responsibility for this catastrophe, and how can our farmers ever trust her again? As I have said in the chamber before, I take full responsibility for everything that this Government does. There is not a shred of complacency on the part of the Scottish Government about this issue. Fergus Ewing has already apologised—I have apologised to farmers for the failures that have been experienced in this system—but that is why a significant part of the time and energy of Fergus Ewing, each and every day right now, is taking up with ensuring that this system delivers as farmers have a right to expect it to do. Obviously, the member has made a number of comments there that require to be challenged. Fergus Ewing just before First Minister's questions started challenged some of them. This issue about disallowance risks. The figure of £60 million is entirely speculative, just as the figure of £125 million, which was quoted in the last year's Audit Scotland report, was also entirely speculative and turned out not to be the case. In terms of the issue about the budget, the financial ceiling for delivering a compliant cap system is being held to. In terms of payments to farmers, it is because we are acutely aware of the importance of cash flow for farmers that we put in place the loan scheme, making sure that farmers got their payments. Of course, as Fergus Ewing already said this morning, 99 per cent of payments in terms of the 2015 round have been made and we are continuing to work through the 2016 payment. We will continue to give this our absolute and full focus and attention to make sure that farmers get the service that they deserve. Mike Rumbles On 31 May last year, Fergus Ewing in his first appearance in the chamber after his appointment said, the farming industry needs to have confidence in the payment timetable and that we will do what we say. There must be no repeat of the problems that we have faced in 2015-16. No repeat. Does the First Minister have confidence that he has fulfilled that promise? The First Minister Yes, that is entirely what Fergus Ewing is focused on doing. That is why we have got the loan scheme in place. That is why we are taking the steps to make sure that farmers get the money that they are expecting while we take the steps that many of which are narrated in the Audit Scotland report today to make sure that the IT system is doing the job that it is there to do while we continue to pay attention to the overall budget and the value for money issues at the heart of this. We will continue, led by Fergus Ewing, to focus absolutely on making sure that we deliver in the way that farmers across the country have the right to expect. Lewis Macdonald To ask the First Minister whether work by Scottish Government officials on a second independence referendum will now cease. The First Minister In case I did not mention it earlier on, last week the SNP won the general election in Scotland with more MPs than all other parties combined. However, as I have already said, I will reflect carefully on the election result before setting out my views on the next steps. What is clear is that the people of the UK have rejected a hard Tory Brexit, and it is imperative that we now build a cross-party for-government approach that will protect all of our interests at this time. Lewis Macdonald She lost a heap of seats. Her flagship policy cost her votes, yet she seemed to think that she would have won the election. That was Theresa May last week, but Nicola Sturgeon this week seems to be equally in denial. Given that the First Minister has said that she wants to be involved in negotiating Brexit on behalf of the UK, will she not now recognise that she cannot possibly be sitting at the top table and heading for the exit at one and the same time? The First Minister I have made my position clear on the reflection that I will now give to the issue of an independence referendum. However, on the issue of Scotland being represented in those negotiations, whatever our disagreements and other matters might be, I would have thought that every MSP across this chamber of all parties would agree that Scotland should be represented in those negotiations. It really beat volumes. I would expect it from the Tories. The Tories want Scotland's position to just be to keep quiet and do whatever the Tories tell us to do. However, I am astounded that not just Labour but Lewis Macdonald in particular, who has actually been very sensible on these matters over the past year, is not getting behind the Scottish Government and demanding that Scotland, Wales and both sides in Northern Ireland are fully engaged in those negotiations. Anything else would be completely unacceptable, and I couldn't believe that Labour would ever go along with it. Question 7, Graham Dey. Thank you. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is marking carers week. First Minister, I want to thank carers for all that they do. The Scottish Government continues to support carers week, which encourages all of us to better understand the challenging circumstances that unpaid carers across Scotland can face. Aileen Campbell and Jamie Hepburn yesterday visited Life Care in Edinburgh to recognise the work of carer positive employers, employers who support unpaid carers in their workplace. Our week-long benefit take-up campaign is also running this week in partnership with Young Scot to increase awareness and uptake of carers allowance among young adults with caring responsibilities. Graham Dey. I very much welcome the actions that I just highlighted. I wonder if the FFM could outline what further measures and support will be provided to unpaid carers in coming years. The Carers Act will extend and enhance the rights of carers to support from next April. That will help them to continue to care if they so wish, but also to maintain a fulfilling life alongside caring. We will also increase carers allowance to the same level as job seekers allowance from summer 2018, and we are committed to increasing carers allowance further for those looking after more than one disabled child. We will also continue to promote the carer positive scheme to employers, linking with our fair work agenda. 72 organisations have so far been recognised as carer positive employers, which covers just short of 300,000 employees. That helps carers balance caring and employment responsibilities, but also helps employers retain valuable staff. Across a whole range of issues, we are absolutely determined to do everything we can to support carers in the invaluable work that they do. Thank you very much. That concludes First Minister's questions. We now move on to members' business in the name of Christine Graham, and just take a few moments from members to change seats.


Good day, fellow investors. I continue reading for fun Buffett's letters to investors. Those are really eternal investing knowledge. And I'm now reading from 1978 to 1981. And the topics are inflation, gold, bonds, free topics that might be very, very interesting for us investors over the next decade. If we see inflation, if we see higher or different interest rates, and therefore let's dig into what Buffett in his eternal wisdom shared through his letters has to tell about and what is his advice on what should we do with bonds, inflation and even gold. Let's start. So Buffett owns bonds. So he says that the original 3% savings bond, a 5% passbook savings account or an 8% US Treasury note have, in turn, being transformed by inflation into financial instruments that chew up rather than enhance purchasing power over their investment lives. So the key with long-term bonds is very simple. Let me just tell you short-term bonds, everything that Buffett has in cash, more than 100 billion is in short-term US Treasuries with a four months maturity. So high liquidity for Buffett, it's like cash and he gets a yield on that. He doesn't invest in long-term bonds. He did that in the 1970s. He later explains how that was a mistake, but why he doesn't invest in bonds. Well, it's very simple. Now, if we look at this chart, the 40 year Treasury yield in red and inflation rate, we can see that those that invested in 1982 in the 40 year Treasury did extremely well as they locked in a 15% yearly yield from the US government that just declined. So if you invested back then in 1982, you would have locked a great yield and made a really killing investment. However, if you would have invested in the years before that from 1974-1975 at 7% or at 10%, you wouldn't have been that happy for the long-term. And this is what Buffett really warns us. We don't know what will be the rate of inflation. We don't know where will the yields go, especially of long-term bonds. And therefore Buffett says that's more betting than real investing. And it's better to have a business than to invest in bonds. And especially now, and my point is, and even Buffett's is that especially now with the 30 year bond of the US government at 3%, bonds offer a very low yield 3% and very big risks. If there is inflation of 5% on average over the next 10 years, and remember inflation is man-made. So the government can say, okay, let's push inflation to 5%, it will make much easier to pay our debt. And you have locked in 3% for the very long-term, while inflation might be 5%, 7%, or even higher, which means it will chew up your investment, your money. So therefore, long-term bonds extremely risky, especially now, we are not at 15%. At 15%, I might take that gamble to invest in long-term bonds at 3%, definitely not. But short-term investors might bet on those changes if interest rates go up and down, but nobody can ever know what will happen to interest rates. As Buffett has severe doubts as to whether a very long-term fixed interest bonds denominated in dollars remains an appropriate business contract in a world where the value of dollars seems to almost certain to shrink by the day. The dollars as well as paper creations of other governments simply may have too many structural weaknesses to appropriately serve as a unit of long-term commercial reference. So, same as now, the dollar all currencies have always been weak, structurally, so they will lose money, lose value over the long-term. And therefore, Buffett invested only in convertible bonds, which is a different game. Staying with the weakness of the dollar, inflation, what is inflation? Buffett understands that low inflation is possible as it is man-made, but that's betting, non-investing. Nobody could have known for certainty that high interest rates wouldn't persist in 1982 and that low interest rate rates would be going on for such a long time since then. How did Buffett protect himself from inflation? He bought food stocks, which is exactly the sector I'm also researching now, so you have a few videos on YouTube if you want to dig deeper or articles on my website. His position in 1981, General Foods, the company was later acquired by Philip Morris and consequently spun off into craft. So, those pandas that are saying that Buffett lost money or made a mistake with craft, we'll have to watch our next videos when we see how much money did Buffett make with the acquisition of General Foods. Just to finish Buffett on gold, he discusses how one friendly but sharp-eyed commentator on Berkshire has pointed out that our book value at the end of 1964 would have bought about one half an ounce of gold and 15 years later, after we have plowed back all earnings along with much blood, sweat and tears, the book value produced will buy about the same half an ounce. However, that was just that period from 1964 to 1980. Since then, Berkshire's stock exploded and gold only exploded again from 2000 to 2011, but now at 1200-1300, it's just double since then. Berkshire had the way since the 1980s. Berkshire's stock since the 1980s is up much, much more. And this is also the message Buffett always had with gold. Gold is not really an investment that constantly delivers. In the last 50-60 years, it delivered twice from 1970-something till 1982 and then you had to have the courage to sell because then from 1982 till 2002 nothing, 20 years of zero negative terrible returns, then a boom from 2002 to 2012 and then again since 2012 very bad returns and we are still lingering 30-40% below the peaks. So gold doesn't produce anything in the meantime Buffett delivered continued to do on the businesses that delivered in that period equally to gold and in the future also much more than gold. So dividends, earnings growth, business growth and the more I look, those businesses, general foods later for Buffett offer even better protection than gold and this is where we and I and Buffett agreed. I have a miner, I have just sold one if you haven't seen the video, check it out, but I'm investing in businesses, mining businesses, value and margin of safety, not as just betting on gold. So the conclusion, don't invest in long-term bonds, better invest in businesses, don't invest in anything with long-term fixed rates.  Please subscribe if you haven't, check my website for more resources, books, newsletters, articles, whatever that might add value to your portfolio. Thank you and I'll see you in the next video.