e very idea that they claim to hold dear. Because we all know where this is heading, down at grievance towers or bute house if you prefer, the stance of the UK Government has already been broadcast as the latest insult to Scotland, the latest slight by Westminster to be exploited. Why not throw in the ghost of Margaret Thatcher, just to get the juices really flowing? The old songs are best after all the beats of the old drum. What was Keith Brown's phrase this weekend? Scotland against the Tories. Deputy Presiding Officer, how simplistic. How out of date? Yes, of course. John McAlpine For taking the intervention, he evokes the ghost of Margaret Thatcher. Is that because Margaret Thatcher pulled more votes in Scotland back in the 1979, 1983 and 1987 than Ruth Davidson and your party managed in the last election? Donald Cameron Well, I'm grateful to the member for the intervention. I invoked Margaret Thatcher because the First Minister invoked Margaret Thatcher in her column for the daily record just the other day. For years, we have put up with the SNP stating that they alone speak for Scotland. And with that comes the insinuation that those who don't support independence are somehow found wanting as if in some way we don't love our country enough. The truth is that no one here can claim to speak exclusively for Scotland, but we do speak for those who elected us. And on these benches, we speak for those whose voices the SNP has swept aside in their quest for a further device of plebysite. We speak for those who genuinely do not want the uncertainty of another referendum at this time. We speak for the families, the workplaces, the homes for whom 2014 was a time of unhappiness. We speak for those Scots who reject independence and are dismayed when they find their patriotism questioned as a result, given that their hearts pound just as hard as the most ardent nationalist when it comes to the love they have for their country. They are the silent majority of Scots who simply want to get on with life and whose voice is not only deserved to be heard but must be heard. In conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, the First Minister says that a referendum is necessary so that we can decide about the kind of country we want to be. Let me save us some time. Let me tell her what kind of country we want Scotland to be. We want a Scotland that is united, not divided against itself. We want a Scotland that talks about the health of its people. We want a Scotland that talks about growing the economy. We want a Scotland that talks about the care of its elderly. We want a Scotland that talks about the dreams that we have for our children. And above all, we want a Scotland that can have all these conversations and acts upon them free from the long shadows cast by the division and resentment that another referendum will bring. Christina McKelvie, to be followed by Jenny Marra. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Democracy, Demos is the rule not just of the people but of the common people, ordinary people, not of the public school elites living in the home counties and posing their views on everyone else. Presiding Officer, it was Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address who spoke of government of the people, by the people and for the people. He spoke to of a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all of us are created equal. We in Scotland share those ideals in the very reincarnation of this country. When this Parliament first opened after a break of 290 years, we will all recall the picture of Donald Dewar amid the hordes of people falling him down the royal mile of Sheena Wellington's movingly lovely rendering of a man's a man for all that. The promise of a new way of governing, one that could indeed be the government of, by and for the people, one that would genuinely represent the same people, one a very long way from the government at Westminster with its transagents, tenured leader and her refusal to even consider a compromise of any kind.  Presiding Officer, I'm not sure what Donald Dewar makes of us all now, undermining the very democracy of this Parliament for some, but I can hazard a guess what he thinks of Theresa May. As you are well aware, colleagues, this Westminster Government was not elected by anyone in Scotland. It's one MP that doubtless represents his constituents. To be fair, so far as I know, he doesn't have five jobs or incomes estimated around 1.8 million of the former chancellor. Good at making money for himself but not very good at governing the public purse. Never mind, Presiding Officer, that's democracy for you. We rejected the prospect of independence and voted to stay in the UK by a very small margin. A lot of people felt the future would be safer that way. We voted to stay in Europe by a margin of about two to one. Look at what we have now. People voted last time because they thought they were safe within the EU. Where are we now? Democracy, said another former US president, Franklin D Roosevelt, cannot succeed unless those who express their choices are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education. This Scottish Parliament is our democratic forum.  We are the voice of the people because we are the Government of the people. Theresa May has no mandate in this place. To protect and preserve our voice, we must have the right to make the choices for ourselves. The Prime Minister has made her feelings clear. She doesn't want a referendum at all, and she especially doesn't want one before her Brexit, dog's Brexit deal, is secured. Yet it is her Government's actions that have brought us to this point. Having to deal with an outcome that most of us didn't believe could happen, everybody in this place didn't believe it could happen. Mrs May has now embraced it with an enthusiasm that impresses Nigel Farage. What does that say about it? That Scotland voted so clearly to remain as evidence of a more informed and involved response to politics here. People learn back and they run up to a referendum that they had not only a right but a real interest in getting informed. People in Scotland now know that the vow was a lie, and what we got in 2014 was evil. English votes for English laws, not respect, not a family of nations. Scottish voters must not be conned by another bout of outrageous and possible promises made by the no campaign and the born-again Brexiteers, that the land will be flown with milk and honey beyond Europe and that the age of the empire and of the Raj is on its way back. Our electorate must be given the right to choose Scotland's future. We must never be, for a moment, forget—now is not the time—but we must never, for a moment, forget our responsibilities to provide genuine, clear and accurate information. There will be no fake news like some of the rubbish that we have heard today from this Government. We must level with our voters. We must level with our voters. Of course I will. I appreciate that, because I am blocked on Twitter and I have been biding my time here. We have talked a lot about respect, tone and factual information. Christina McKelvie has been keeping up her record of the politician who tweets whines over Scotland the most as we face another referendum. Christina McKelvie? It is really not worth responding to, but if anybody looks at the public record, they will know why Monica Lennon and her abusers are blocked on Twitter. We have felt the brutal squeezing of our budget, especially the vicious and cruel assault by the Tories on Social Security—a vicious assault that those guys seem to think is okay. We know now that the price of oil has fallen. We are going to see much worse and come to the tariffs of anything up to 40 per cent introduced under WTO regulations. He is describing members of this chamber as abusers and making accusations such as we just heard. Surely that cannot be in order? If you wish to make a complaint, Mr Johnson, I think that you should do so. Christina McKelvie? I think that the member should check the record. I did not refer to any individual member, but there is a cohort. Our free European market of £500 million is not going to be free of any more, and we are already starting to see prices rise and the falling pounds. Just look at interest. We all know that it is unacceptable, according to the code of conduct for this chamber, for an individual MSP to call out another individual MSP like that, but she has just repeated the charge that there was a cohort here and pointed to the Labour members, and that is simply not acceptable. I have listened to what has been said, and I say that, in the heat of debate, members should always treat each other respectfully where there are strong views. The official record will be checked, and we will have a look at it and revert back. Ms McKelvie, you will have to wind up now. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The first choice is that we need to make that choice. If the choice is bombs not burns, I choose burns. If the choice is demonisation of the sick and the disabled, I choose a full independent social security system. If the choice is rape clauses, I choose to treat women and children with respect. If the choice is a withdrawal from the ECHR and Human Rights Act, I choose the Human Rights Act. If the choice is abandoning children and children refugees, I choose sanctuary. I choose for Scotland. I call Jenny Marra to be followed by Clare Adamson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Given those remarks just outlined, I say that it is with a heavy heart that we come to this debate yet again. I know that that is true from all sides of this debate. Those of us who voted no in 2014 certainly did not expect to have this debate again, as we were promised that it would be once in a generation. However, I suspect from the conversations that I have had with friends and acquaintances who voted yes last time that they neither did not expect to be torpedoed back into this binary question so soon. Scottish Labour will vote tomorrow no to a section 30 order for a second referendum simply because we do not think that it is good for Scotland. The SNP has argued that there has been a material change of circumstance as set out in their manifesto with the Brexit vote that gives them the authority to call for another vote. I agree that Brexit, although it contains possibilities, as every crisis does, is overall a shambles. It was a foolish and irresponsible Prime Minister that visited the European referendum on us in the first place. However, the case that we made on EU membership and Scottish membership of the EU in 2014 remains unaltered. An independent Scotland would find it very difficult to become an independent member of the European Union. With agreement of all member states required, I failed to see how it is in Spain or Belgium's interests with its own secessionist movements to grant Scotland's membership. I am happy to take an intervention. The economics of the situation do not add Gil Paterson. Gil Paterson. I much appreciate the invite. Is this project 3 again or is it project fear with a 3 on it? Jenny Marra. I do not quite understand the intervention, so I will continue. The economics of this situation do not add up. Scotland would struggle to meet the convergence criteria for membership with a £15 billion deficit. The European Commission said quite clearly last week that Scotland would be required to apply as an accession state and queue up like everyone else. We saw the TV interviews at the weekend that even SNP MPs do not understand their own case for this membership of the EU. The idea, mooted by some nationalists, that Scotland would assume that the UK's membership is at best naive but really it is not living in the real political world. The thing that most upsets and worries me about the prospect of a second referendum is the focus that it will divert from domestic issues. During the last referendum at a debate at Dundee University, I said that Scotland's education system used to be the best in the world, but we could no longer make that claim. In a minute, Shona Robison dismissed this assertion categorically and accused me of the same thing that she did every time I raised an issue of talking Scotland down. Wine forward three years and it seems that I was not far off the mark. We find that our First Minister proclaiming that education is now the priority of her Government as the statistics roll-in make extremely worrying reading for every parent in Scotland. Less than half of primary 7 children in Dundee reach expected numeracy standards, and that is in the face of continual SNP cuts. The SNP has taken nearly £900 per primary school pupil out of Dundee schools. We were right and nobody will tell me otherwise that this Government's attention was diverted away from people's priorities, and it seems that that is happening again. I will take John Swinney now. John Swinney? I am very grateful to Jenny Marra for taking the intervention, and she will have to ask those specific questions to Mr Swinney. I do not know if you were present when I was speaking, but would the member acknowledge that there has already been implications for education as regards university applications from EU students, and particularly for research already as a result of the decision on Brexit, which has not even progressed? Jenny Marra? Yes, I would agree with the member. I said in my opening remarks that I think that the Brexit situation is a shambles, but the EU position of the SNP is not clear. The essential work that we are doing on the Public Audit Committee, scrutinising eye-watering deficits in our public services, will also gather little attention as referendum fever builds again. Friends who voted yes last time and who will do again tell me that Scotland's economy needs radical action and that we need to do things differently. I do not disagree. The inequality that we see in our communities created by post-industrialism, globalisation and automation is the biggest question for all progressive people and our politics today. It is not generic to Scotland, though, and I believe will be made worse not better by a second vote. A few months ago, Peter Scowin, the deputy editor of the Toronto Globe and Mail, came to Edinburgh to talk about referendums in Quebec. He told a story that we would be foolish to ignore. Before the first referendum on Quebec leaving Canada, he said that Montreal in Quebec was poids on the brink of huge economic success. However, as a result of the uncertainty caused by the referendum, business decided to go elsewhere to Toronto. The second referendum compounded matters. Quebec's economy, he said, has never recovered from the uncertain environment for business and industry that the succession questions caused. To that end, Presiding Officer, I ask the SNP today if this referendum is held and people vote no again, will the SNP rule out a third referendum because we can see what this continual question can do? From now on, everyone will have to keep to under six minutes please or people won't get in. Clare Adamson followed by Miles Briggs. Not for the first time, I want to speak about my journey to the cause. Jenny Marra We may want to check the official record, but it is my understanding that both Christina McKelvie and Richard Lyle have well over seven minutes in this debate. If that latitude is to be applied to some members, then it should be applied to all members. That is not a point of order, Ms Marra. A timing of debates is agreed by the business bureau, then the Parliament running these debates is the responsibility of the Presiding Officer. Clare Adamson I want to talk about my journey to the cause. Sorry, Ms Adamson. A point of order, Richard Lyle. That Ms Marra named me. I have not spoken in this debate. Can you have a ruling, please? Thank you, Mr Lyle, for that point of clarification, although not a point of order, Ms Adamson. I would like to speak about my journey to the cause of Scottish independence. Growing up in industrial central Scotland, the granddaughter of an Irish steel worker who came here in the 1920s and who worked in the Diel Mill in Motherwell, the very mill saved by this Government last year with the Liberty Steel buy-out, I grew up where the Labour Party values were forged in Lanarkshire, Cair Hardy's home county. When I was a teenager, I watched in the news as miners picketed outside Ravenscraig and our police were used as a tool of the Tory Government to systematically destroy my community, pitting worker against worker and demonising our police force. Ms Adamson. The police were there to protect us. The community, an economy and an industrial industry were destroyed by the Tories, and that is why I will never, ever trust the Tories to have the interests of Motherwell, Wisha, Lanarkshire or Scotland at the heart of anything they do. And to my Labour colleagues, it was that that convinced me that Scotland as an independent nation could have saved its steel industry, and in the 30 years intervening, nothing has changed my mind, whether that's Iraq wars or Tory austerity. Because we are here again, Tory Government bent on inflicting economic and social chaos of a hard Brexit on Scotland. To my Labour colleagues, as they examine the shambles of their party down south, are they condemned to leave Scotland to the vagaries of a Tory Government? A Tory Government that used othering to demonise and blame asylum seekers for their economic failures, a Tory Government deploying othering of European citizens, failing to give them the simplest of guarantees about their future now and following breakfast Brexit, or a Tory Government deploying othering of their own citizens as they demonise the poor, disabled and the sick. Othering's disabled people subjecting them to demeaning PIP assessments and visiting destitution on its own citizens, and they have the cheek to say that we are divisive when othering is at the heart of their policies. And the Labour Party are content to sit back and allow this to be visited on Scotland. They know that federalism, no thank you, like the Liberal Democrats, is unlikely to happen because they are neither going to be a position and possibly the next 30 years to deliver it, but they will leave Scotland to the vagaries of Tory Government in that intervening time. The Lib Dems want to give choice for the UK, but not choice for Scotland. They talk about the possibilities of that. What they should understand is that whist possibilities come probabilities and likely outcomes. This is our future of our country. It is not some existential version of Schrodinger's cat where all things are possible until they are observed. The Scottish people are observing, the Brexit box is open, the cats about to eat the poison and the way for it to avoid the inevitable is just to get out the box. It really is that simple, Presiding Officer. I call Miles Briggs to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. A First Minister is there to bring a country together, to bring the whole country together, but in Nicola Sturgeon we have a First Minister who knows only one way to govern, and that is to pit one scot against another, the politics of grievance and division. I do not think that that works for our country any longer. Scotland is too vast, too complex a country to be governed in such a way. After what has been a hugely disruptive period in both Scottish and British politics, last week we saw the true calculated response to the United Kingdom leaving the EU from this First Minister. At the very time when we needed politicians from across this country to come together and work together, we had a First Minister looking to exploit an already difficult and complex situation. Just look at how the First Minister responded to the decision by voters across this United Kingdom to leave the EU just three hours after the result was declared. Did the First Minister rise to the office that she holds to look to call for unity and keep a calm head? Did the First Minister enter into a constructive working relationship with the new Prime Minister to help protect Scottish jobs and look to the opportunities that our country has in the future? No, instead the First Minister looked to exploit anxiety, to try to turn it into a grievance and more division, to try to take us back to the divisions of 2014. I think that the events of the last week have shown the people of Scotland exactly the sort of First Minister that Nicola Sturgeon wants to be. A First Minister who is not really interested in finding solutions, but instead a First Minister who wants to exploit the issues for political gain. Just like the First Minister, I voted remain last June, but I am also a Democrat and this is what democracy is all about—how we put our arguments to the people and the manner by which we live by their decisions. I do not doubt or underestimate that Scotland and the United Kingdom face some real and pressing challenges as we work to build the strongest political and economic future for our countries outside of the European Union, but we should be working to help to build the strong trading links that we need with every European country. Deputy Presiding Officer, our great and perhaps unique strength as a United Kingdom is the fact that we are strong as a country, not in spite of our differences, but because of our differences. The grievance and division that the SNP wants to return our country to is not the Scotland I believe in. It is not the type of a society that I believe the majority of people in Scotland, often the silent majority of people in our country, want to live in. In recent weeks, I have met hundreds of SNP voters who are growing tired of the political games of this Government and this First Minister. Many of our fellow Scots who voted SNP in the past are beginning to cast a weary eye over this Government. What about the 40 per cent of SNP voters who voted to leave the European Union? How must they feel to see a Government and a First Minister not listening to them? I listened to what I believe was one of the best speeches today from Bruce Crawford. Sadly, Clare Adamson and Christina McKelvie undermined what he was trying to say in their contributions. However, I want to say today that SNP voters are not our enemy, they are our neighbours. Those are good people who want better from their country and their government, good people who thought that they were sending MSPs to this Scottish Parliament to be strong voices for their communities but got nothing in return but Nicola Sturgeon's voice in their community. Last week demonstrated the fact that our First Minister has stopped being a First Minister now for all of Scotland, and we should all regret that. But as a country, we need to move forward from the divisions of the past. The United Kingdom has always worked as a family of nations to pull together when we face tough times. That is just how the UK works, and that is exactly what people across Scotland are calling on politicians across this chamber to do. Our United Kingdom, at its very heart, is a story of friendship and hope during difficult times. The bonds that bind our countries together, we learn from each other and we are there for each other. Deputy Presiding Officer, I believe that there is a longing and a need for a real, principled leadership in Scotland today—leadership that will bring our country together—a longing for us to work together as parliaments, as Scotland's two Governments, to make a success of the decision by voters across the United Kingdom. For us all to work to build the most entrepreneurial, competitive and successful country in the world, if we are going to achieve that goal, we need to unite as a country, not be divided even further. Now is the very time that Scotland needs unity. Finally, to conclude, on behalf of the voters that I represent across the Lothian region, I want to give this message to the First Minister today. We might not agree on everything in this Parliament. In fact, we might disagree on a great number of things, but I know that we can agree on this. Grievance, division and negativity cannot be the political lifeblood of this country. Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom in 2014. It is time that the Scottish Government started to listen to the people of Scotland. Stuart Stevenson, followed by Daniel Johnson. Presiding Officer, it has been a very interesting exercise in democracy listening to colleagues across the chamber. There are some speeches that I will definitely read with some great care when the official report is published. I will read Alec Rowley's contribution, not because I agreed with his conclusions but because of the quality of the argument that he deployed in support of his conclusions. I will read Bruce Crawford's speech again because of the moderation of his expression and the felicitation of its words. Ivan McKee delineated an interesting approach. Adam Tomkins, not a man that I have often found myself agreeing with in conclusion, at least had the decency to argue a case where step A was followed by step B followed by step C. I see he has been absent for the chamber sometime. I hope that he will read a number of the speeches in this Parliament as I will do. Jenny Marra talked about how difficult it is to get into the EU. One of the things about the EU that is particularly interesting is how flexible it is. It took only three months for East Germany to get into the EU, curiously enough. Of course, for my constituents who have a particular hatred entirely justified and sustained by the SNP who has been opposed to the common fisheries policy from 1975 to the present day, there is a curious exception in the EU. There is a part of the EU that is a full member of the EU that is not in the common fisheries policy, even though it is a coastal state. That is Gibraltar. It may be a tiny exception, but there are in democratic societies, in democratic institutions, the capability of being flexible. I want to talk a little bit about the United Kingdom, and why the United Kingdom may now be passed at the point of recovery. One of the things that those who voted to leave in the recent referendum should perhaps take heart from is that, under the present rules for admission to the EU, the United Kingdom could not be re-admitted. The reason for that is article 2 that requires respect for democracy, stability of institutions, guaranteeing democracy. Very specifically, functional democratic governance requires that all systems of the country should be able to participate on an equal basis in the political decision making at every single governing level. The majority of national politicians are unelected, undismissable and therefore the UK, in European terms, is not a democracy. That is hard to those who voted to leave. Of course, there is a little bit more when we look at the processes of Westminster. Alison Thoolis, my MP colleague, has discovered that it is impossible for any parliamentary process to oppose a negative instrument. In this case, any effect penalising those with a third child requiring that it be shown to have been by rape is not the way that a modern progressive democracy should work. I want to say a few words about fishing because, without doubt, those who had an interest in fishing were the most antipathetic to the European project and with good reason. When I came here in 2001, my first speech was in the common fisheries policy. At a time when we were savaging our fleet at European behest, while simultaneously the EU was funding the building of new boats in Spain, those boats were, of course, to fish in our waters. If we get anything out of where we are today, it is an opportunity to reset the way in which we have access to our European waters, our own national waters. In my parliamentary constituency, the four candidates who stood in last year's election were all remainers, but we all share a duty to support the interests of our constituents. On the subject of independence, it is worth saying that it is not a particularly unusual activity. The UK has, if it is brief, please... Lewis MacDonald I am very grateful. Can I simply ask, following the reference to fishing, is it Mr Stevenson's intention, should our second independence referendum go ahead, to ask the fisherman in his constituency to vote to leave the United Kingdom in order to rejoin the European Union? Stewart Stevenson We have shown the kind of flexibility, and I direct them to Scotland's place in Europe, section 127, which reads, in our compromise, we are clear that, under this option, we would not remain within the common fisheries policy. We are being flexible and offering compromise. Would the others do the same thing? Let's just say a little bit about where the UK and Scotland can go from where we are, because at the moment there is only one word—it's a gull. In crises times, the UK has, on occasion, been bold enough to bring everybody into the room in an attempt to solve the problem, and in fishing I returned to the very simple thing—that the position of fishing would be protected, the argument would be amended and taken forward if the Scottish fishing minister leads the way in the debates with the EU. I urge the UK to listen to that again. It takes a button off their shoulders, gives them the time to do other things, would help us and ensure that we get the kind of outcome that we absolutely require for our fishermen. Daniel Johnson We have had a heated and argumentative debate, but there is one absolute clarity. The SNP prospectus for a second independence referendum is based on flawed assumptions and confused logic. It claims that it is based on certainty and choice, but the reality is that independence can only lead to more risk and there is certainly less clarity. As evidenced no less than by the previous speaker talking in confused terms about the EU and whether or not we would even join the EU. Perhaps the most concerning of all is that it is willfully ignoring what the Scottish people want, which is to leave constitutional uncertainty behind them. Last week we had a constructive and insightful debate from the Committee on Tourism and Europe, discussing the uncertainties of Brexit, and it is true that Brexit lays before us a great number of uncertainties. We discussed what the implications would be of trading under DWTO rules. We discussed the benefits of the co-operation that we have through European organisations and institutions, and we discussed how the implications of Brexit would be counted on economic costs, not least in terms of jobs. However, the reality is that leaving the UK, the single market that we have enjoyed for so long, is of four times greater significance in terms of trade. It is leaving the UK that presents the very real prospect of Scotland having to trade with the rest of these islands on DWTO rules, which Ailey Whiteford was saying just at the weekend would be extremely damaging. What is more, the co-operation that even the white paper had baked into it would be brought into that because of the similarity between the EU status and the UK status. The reality is that independence does not ease those risks, does not help those uncertainties, it exacerbates them, and the reality is that we have had not one argument from the benches over there about how those risks would be ameliorated or mitigated. Patrick Harvie Daniel Johnson and I would agree that I suspect entirely about the Brexit shambles and the two-year period of uncertainty that is before us because of that, but surely it follows that to defer a decision about whether the voters of Scotland choose to stay on that path until after 2019 extends uncertainty. It does not diminish it at all. Daniel Johnson It increases that uncertainty because there is no set of circumstances in which Scotland will remain continuously a member of the EU. The fact of Brexit as unpalatable as it is is that Scotland is coming out of the EU. What we are discussing here is whether or not it will have a differentiated status to the rest of the UK, with the dire consequences on trade, on the economy and jobs that would come with it. If you accept that that is the consequence of Brexit, you have to accept that those are the consequences of independence. The First Minister described that as being about informed choice, but the reality is that the situation this time is more complicated and more risky than last time. The economic case is less sure because of the collapse in oil and the international context far less certain. The reality is that this should not surprise us because this is just another excuse from the party that only believes in one thing, that only believes in independence, because motion after motion that we have had in this place, vote after vote, they have willfully ignored, except this is apparently the historic one. Time after time it was about having the acknowledgement of our options in that letter triggering article 50, except the First Minister shot her bolt before that letter was even sent. Indeed, we know that this is an excuse when we look at the cartwheels and contortions laid before us over recent days, over the definition of whether a generation was meant or what a generation really means. Indeed, we are not even clear. We do not even have the commitment from the Scottish Government that we would even apply for European membership. Is it EFTA? Is it EU? We do not know. The reality is that this is a party that has spent the last two and a half years looking for another excuse for another independence referendum. Indeed, I think that there could be no more sure key to that being the case than the rhetoric that we have had from those benches. Despite some of the pleas from people like Ruth Maguire and Bruce Crawford for a dignified debate, we have had insult after insult from Ash Denham, from Christina McKelvie, and then we have had the grandiose rhetoric from Jenny Gilruth and Richard Lochhead talking about the eyes of the world, Scottish stories and Ivan McKee's historians of the future. However, not one person has answered this. Is it a good idea? Is it worth doing? You have not been making that case in your speeches, have you? It is a little bit late. We are already past five o'clock. The reality is that we are two years on from the last independence rate and we have got no new ideas. Indeed, all that we have is stuttering from Jenny Cherry, who cannot even begin to answer questions on currency. Indeed, we have Jenny Gilruth laying out a picture of industrial decline, which is serious in Scotland, which we do need to tackle. However, not one word on how we would tackle the 11 per cent budget deficit, not one word on how we would tackle the £15 billion of cuts that we need to make up. What would be the impact of those cuts on the Scottish economy? What would be the impact of those cuts on Scottish industry? The reality is that the SNP argument on the EU is flawed. The SNP argument on certainty is flawed. The SNP argument on the compromises that they have made are certainly unclear and the SNP cannot be even clear where they stand on the EU. Labour stands against this independence referendum because we need to put division and divisiveness behind us. We stand opposed to this independence referendum because it distracts from the reality of the issues that we need to deal with, such as industry, such as education. We stand against this independence referendum because, quite simply, it increases risks and uncertainties that will only be counted in the cost of jobs to Scotland. Before I move on to Mr Dorn, can I say to members in regard to the points of order earlier? I have now read the official report, and this is clearly a matter between members that they may wish to discuss between themselves. However, I would reiterate that, from the point of view here, passions are running high, and I should remind all members during the course of those debates to treat each other with respect. We now move on to James Dorn and to be followed by Brian Whittle. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will try to be as respectful as I possibly can in such an important debate. Despite the best efforts of the First Minister, we now find ourselves in the process of having another referendum in Scottish self-determination. During the last referendum, support for yes climbed from 27 to 45 per cent, partly because people realised that the continual Tory Government was becoming increasingly likely due to the continuing demise of the once great Labour Party. This time, the spectre of continual Tory control at Westminster is now not a likelihood but a certainty. I want to discuss two things during my contribution. The first is the importance of the decision that we make to our future generations. When people of my year are going to the polling booth to vote for or against self-determination for Scotland, they have to consider the impact that their vote will have for the future of their sons, daughters, grandchildren, nieces, nephews and children that they do not even know. They have to decide what kind of legacy they want to leave. A future where our children get to work, study and live in Europe, where they get to make their own choices, including mistakes that they will undoubtedly make or have their future decided for them by a Government, run by people who do not even care enough to protect and welcome unaccompanied children from war zones. Kezia Dugdale says today that I hate what the Tories are doing to Britain, and yet the end result is going to be that she will continue to make sure that the Tories do that to Britain. Can I say to the member that I am genuinely listening, can he tell us how, faced with a £15 billion deficit, the poorest people in his constituency will benefit from independence? James Darnham. Can I say in response to that that any deficit that the Scottish Government may well end up with when we become independent will be a deficit that was run up under this union that you seem to be so proud to be a member of? Will Scottish Labour seem to be content and forever siding with the Tories? At Westminster we have Corbyn and his colleagues saying that they would allow a referendum because even they understand that the will of the Scottish people is to be respected. Although I will be quite honest with the Labour Party in such this array, I am not going to hold my breath in that position either. If my memory serves me correctly, Kezia Dugdale and Alec Rowley said last year that they were supportive of the Scottish Government's efforts to maintain a relationship with the EU. As Sarwar earlier on today said that he wanted truth, well, here's some truth. For poverty and the NHS, I don't see how Kezia can say that an independent Scotland would be worse than living with the outcome of a predicted Tory Government to Westminster till up to 2030 and beyond. I've watched Labour abstain and vote after vote in Westminster, votes in legislation that would have protected some of the poorest in our country. Scottish Labour would rather, it appears that Scottish Labour would rather stay in an unholy alliance with the Tories than do what's right for the people of Scotland. I heard and I listened very carefully to Alec Rowley's speech and I thought that the tone of Alec Rowley's speech was great. I agreed with a lot of what he said, but I can't see how he can come to the conclusion that under the Westminster we're going to get a good deal for Scotland. We're talking about a Westminster Government here that refused to speak to the First Minister or listen to anything that the First Minister was saying in the run-up to the article 50 being announced. It's a Government that refuses to take into consideration anything that any redevolved nations have done. Why would you think that if we say no to tomorrow night that they will all of a sudden start to listen to us and think about the other nations of the United Kingdom, it's just not going to happen? That brings me to the party on my left. I've got a weak comment here. You don't get a referendum for free, you have to earn it. If the Greens and the SNP go over a line, make a majority, get votes in Parliament, then they'll vote through a referendum and that's what democracy is all about. It's perfectly simple. That was Ruth Davidson. What has changed? What has changed? Nothing, except for the fact that Ruth sees that she might have a future elsewhere if things go badly here. When the Prime Minister talks about playing politics, she should remember that it was her predecessor who called the leave-remain referendum in order to stave off UKIP and appease his own Eurosceptics MPs. There was no demand for a referendum in Europe, and yet here we are. Theresa May herself warned that Brexit would be a disaster before she changed her spots to suit her own political games and ambitions. She knew that, should David Cameron and the rest of the pro-Europe group lose the EU referendum, that it would be, and I quote, fatal for the union with Scotland. If Theresa May and the Tories knew that Brexit would indeed be catastrophic for the union, which she claims is so dear to her, it's no wonder that Scotland is flabbergasted at the utter disregard that seems to be held in when it comes to negotiations. Nicola Sturgeon, Mike Russell, Fiona Hyslop and the rest of the Scottish Government have made it very clear that it would be willing to work, listen and engage, but the devolved administration seemed to be snubbed at every turn. Just yesterday, as some of my colleagues have already highlighted, the devolved administrations were to find out the trigger date for article 50 on the BBC. That's simply not good enough. How often do we hear the phrase, a partnership of equals? And yet, how often can it be displayed that this is simply not the case? It's not for me, the SNP, the Tories or indeed any other party to decide the future of Scotland. While the United Kingdom faces uncertainty and economic instability, it's for the people of Scotland to decide how this country moves forward. I will be voting for independence should we're given a choice because I believe that this debate is about what kind of Scotland we want to be, but I firmly believe, no matter how you vote, that this choice does belong to the people of Scotland. Their future should be one decided by them and not one made for them, and that's why I'm supporting the Government's motion. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. For once, I take no pleasure in taking part in a debate in this chamber. Thanks to the kingmaker and his sidekicks, with their incredibly quickly biodegrading manifesto commitments, apparently already in the pockets of the SNP, the outcome of the debate may already be decided. I wanted the opportunity to speak up from the majority of Scots who are sick and tired of this Government continually putting their pet obsession ahead of actually governing Scotland, ever size-stepping their actual responsibilities, a Government of smoke and mirrors. Presiding Officer, this week we are having two days of debate on this issue, because after two years and the largest democratic vote in Scotland's history, apparently not just now, we need further debate on this issue. In the end, though, this is an illusion. Sound and fury signify nothing, and nothing is exactly what's being achieved today. Nothing to tackle preventable health, nothing to support the NHS, nothing to improve education for the next generation, nothing to support farmers still waiting for farm payments, nothing to address poor economic performance, nothing to justify Scotland being the highest tax part of the UK. In other words, nothing to discuss issues of genuine importance to the people of Scotland. The Scottish Government may have given its most in the title Scotland's choice, but this is not the debate that the majority of Scots would choose. Contrary to the latest constitutional myth, dreamt up by the SNP, Scotland does not face a choice between independence and Brexit. It faces a choice between pragmatically dealing with a situation that it finds itself in as a result of democratically held elections or being dragged by the SNP Government into yet more distracting, demoralising toxic arguments about an issue that does nothing to address the real problems facing Scotland. Presiding Officer, I didn't vote for independence and I didn't vote for Brexit, and yet somehow the First Minister feels that she has the right to take my remain vote and the revolts of over one and a half million Scots as a signal to hold another independence referendum. I'm certain that my ballot in the EU referendum didn't say remain and if I lose, I'm happy for the Scottish Government to ignore my vote in 2014 and use my remain vote to put a party political interest above the interests of Scotland. The Scottish Government appears to live in a world where any instance of things failing to go their way is an excuse for a referendum. It's one thing to be a sore loser, it's another to ignore the result and twist reality to suit your own narrative. The idea that the 2014 independence referendum was somehow invigorating and enlightening does not resonate with me. Yes, there may have been many more Scots engaged in politics, but it was the politics of division and it's this division that the SNP continues to drive and cultivate for its own end. I remember being in the better together campaign reception through the night and watching the results as they came in. I was relieved when we realised that our union would remain intact, but I have to say that my overwhelming feeling was one of sadness. My one and only conversation with Jim Murphy—I don't know if you remember him, tall guy of future Scottish Labour—was when he put his hand out to me and joyously proclaimed we've won. I remember looking at him in the eye and saying, what have we won, Jim? My country's torn in two. How do we go about fixing that? You see, Presiding Officer. The SNP and their cohorts were comprehensively defeated, but I would suggest that nobody won. How can anyone realistically claim victory against a backdrop of such huge division and discord? Regrettably, Presiding Officer, here we are again. We need to recognise that when it comes to SNP, nothing else matters. It is independence, no matter what it costs Scotland and the Scottish people. We will use any excuse, real or invented, to leverage their obsession. How can the Scottish Government justify returning to this issue again so quickly? What was supposed to be once an generation issue was allowed to lie for less than the lifespan of an average goldfish? Speaking of creatures with short memories, I would like to suggest that we insert a new definition of the word generation into the dictionary, something along the lines of the period of time equal to however long it takes Alex Salmond to forget he made a promise. I entered this place less than a year ago with the hope that I would have the opportunity to discuss and debate health, education and the rural economy, to try to bring some different ideas to this chamber through constructive dialogue and to help in any way possible to shape a better, brighter future for Scotland. I very quickly came to appreciate the huge weaknesses of this SNP Government. It is laid bare for all to see in every debate and with every question that it put to them that remains unanswered. This chamber hosts a never-ending game of SNP buzzword bingo. Westminster, Tory austerity, Brexit, no matter what the topic, no matter what the question, their rhetoric remains the same, always designed to cultivate division in Scotland and between Scotland and the rest of the UK to stoke up grievance and resentment, independence, no matter what it costs my country. The SNP has nothing else to offer, nothing of substance and no original thought. The philosopher important, George Santillar, said that a fanatic is one who redoubles his effort when he's forgotten his aim. The First Minister has forgotten her aim, Presiding Officer. It's clear that whatever was said in the SNP's last manifesto about health and education and dealing with the issues of real importance to the people of Scotland, it was all hastily thrown together to disguise the fact that they are a party with no aims for Scotland beyond independence. The SNP wants to talk about the second manifesto. Mr Whittle, just one second. Can I say to Mr McAlpine, please let this be a point of order and not an interruption disguised as a point of order? Thank you, Presiding Officer. The member just called the First Minister a fanatic. I regard that as unparliamentary language, which I think is against the standing orders of the Parliament, and I wondered if he would give an opinion on that. I'm not sure that that is exactly what Mr Whittle did describe the First Minister as. Mr Whittle. You're absolutely correct, Presiding Officer. That is not what I said. The SNP wants to talk about how a second referendum may or may not work so that the people begin to think that it is inevitable. We're not going to play that game. It's not inevitable. It shouldn't happen. The SNP should take it off the table because the people of Scotland don't want it. I suggest that, if members do not wish to take an intervention, it's up to them, so please do not continue to pester a member for an intervention if they're not taking an intervention. Since entering this Parliament, I have campaigned for constitutional change based on the principle that powers should be devolved for a purpose, and that purpose is to create a co-operative, progressive and socialist society. There's little point of having powers or repeatedly calling for them, then not using those powers when you get them. That is what we've seen with taxation, social security, procurement and so many other areas where this Government is failing our citizens. In the 65 public meetings that I spoke at during the referendum, I argued for a federal system of government where power is devolved to the most logical and appropriate level. I want to see a Government and public bodies at local, national and supranational levels use their powers to create full employment, rebuild the public services that civilise our society, provide homes for all our children and end the scandal of 260,000 Scottish children living in poverty. Devolving power as we have seen does not mean progressive change follows. That requires political will, hard cash, redistribution of wealth and power, and a commitment to face down the corporate and new establishment interests that control Scottish society and the economy. We had a referendum once in a generation event that the former and current First Minister spoke of, but they now perform verbal gymnastics or resort to amnesia to disown their words. Of course, the camera never lies. On numerous occasions I've heard the First Minister demand that, if there is a majority in this Parliament to have another referendum, then the will of this Parliament must be respected, but, of course, this argument only applies when it suits the First Minister's case. Where was this great champion of parliamentary democracy when this Parliament defeated her Government on fracking, on NHS cuts, on Highlands and Islands enterprise, on council funds, on the offensive behaviour at footballer, on failing education policy and local government's cuts? I will give way to the First Minister if she can tell us why it suits her argument, but when she is defeated she rejects democracy. I will give way if the First Minister wants to tell us. That tells you everything. Does she change her policy after those defeats? No, she plowed on regardless of this Parliament. Let none of us take any lectures from the First Minister about respecting the will of Parliament when, by her own arrogant belief that she can do no wrong, she has shown nothing but contempt for this Parliament. What about her little helpers in the Green Party? What about her little helpers in the Green Party, a party that is repeatedly claimed to stand on the moral high ground on so many issues, claimed that they were the champions of democracy, that they do politics differently from other parties, yet at the budget the worst negotiators in history sold out public sector workers and council services at the first opportunity, and now they rip up their manifesto, which said that if a new referendum is to happen it should come about by the will of the people and not be driven by the calculations of party political advantage. Another sell-out at this rate, Mr Harvey, will be declaring his undying love for Donald Trump. Presiding Officer, we come to the issue of Europe. Last Tuesday the SNP policy was to remain in the EU. The following day they were joining EFTA. Saturday it was EU and according to the former First Minister we were back to EFTA again. Is it really the Government's plans to see powers return from Brussels to this Parliament only for them to hand them back to Brussels again? Let's save ourselves time, like the West Lothian question, let's call it the Alec Neill question. If an independent Scotland was to rejoin the EU it would have to join a future date to join the euro, and most worryingly of all, except a 3 per cent budget deficit. Of course Scotland has never been asked if it wants to be a member, so should there be a referendum we need clarity from the Government. The First Minister tells us how public services would be paid for under her independence plan when there would be no Barnett formula that gives us over £1,000 extra per head. How would it be paid for with the oil price at the level that it is now, and how would it be paid for with a 3 per cent budget deficit demanded by the European Union? People want a job, they want good schools for their children to live in, they want to be educated in. They need care and dignity and old age to live in clean and safe communities. The Government and this Parliament's energy, time, budget and focus should be on these things, not another two years of constitutional wrangling. I believe that all of us want to live in a better society, but socialism and nationalism are two very different political philosophies. As a socialist, I want to live in a country that retains UK wide fiscal redistribution, a united trade union movement and social solidarity, based on class, not nation. Our final speaker in this afternoon's debate, Michael Russell. Can I just welcome, as a nationalist, the re-emergence in the last five minutes of Better Together? It is to see Ruth Davidson and Neil Findlay get together, a marriage made by Brexit. Bruce Crawford made, undoubtedly, one of the best speeches of the afternoon. When he asked this chamber— Sorry, Mr Russell. The point of order, Neil Findlay, is this? I could withdraw that mark, because, as he knows, I voted remain in the referendum. That's not a point of order yet again, Mr Russell. Allegedly, so did Ruth Davidson. Let me start with Ruth Crawford's speech, which was not only right in terms of tone, it was right in terms of conclusion. This debate will have to be concluded. It will have to be concluded by debate. It will have to be concluded by the exchange of ideas, because there are three positions in this debate. There is a position that Scotland will leave the EU with the rest of the—no, I'm not taking an intervention—we'll leave the EU with the rest of the UK on the hardest of Brexit terms. There was a position that we would leave the EU with the UK in a negotiated settlement, and there is a position in which the Scottish people will decide. In order to have that debate, however, we have to have clarity. And this has also been a debate of three confusions, and they're all confusions sewn by the Tory party, so let me see if I can clarify them. The first of them is the conclusion of what a manifesto is. According to the Tories, a green manifesto must be observed to the absolute letter. According to the Tories, an SNP manifesto must be abandoned completely. And according to the Tories, their own manifesto commitment, I remind you, yes to the single market, must simply be forgotten. It's not quite as entertaining, of course, as the Lib Dem manifesto, which, according to Willie Rennie, is about to be delivered. It's on its way. I wouldn't hold your breath for that. The second confusion today is a confusion of Governments. If you listen carefully to this debate, there are extraordinary double standards being applied. The SNP Government, with the First Minister, who has painstakingly tried to get a Brexit compromise, and it is that Brexit compromise is here. I know how painstaking her approach has been, who has painstakingly tried to get a Brexit compromise, who is leading a highly successful, highly popular administration. I'm quite happy to start reading the list of achievements that will take me longer than my six minutes. I'm sorry to say, but a highly successful, highly popular administration, now 10 years in office, with around 50 per cent of the vote still, apparently she is not doing her day job. She's obsessed with the detriment of, amongst other things, the legislative programme. She's only interested, according to the Tories, in her own political party. Yet, astonishingly, there is a UK Government and a UK Prime Minister who we know has rejected compromise, who creates division, who won't negotiate, who's presiding over a collapsing health service, a divided and class-ridden education system, the most expensive universities in the world, what is, truthfully, the highest tax part of the UK, and who has made the worst ever cuts to local authorities, and who has, because of Brexit, abandoned almost the entire Westminster legislative programme, apparently she is doing her day job. In addition, she's working in the interests of her nation, not her party, and she has the support of the Labour Party, clearly. That's the second confusion. Both those confusions are bad enough, but there's a third and very serious and alarming and damaging conclusion. It's this. It's exemplified by Adam Tomkins, who is apparently an expert in constitutional law, who bawled at the end of his speech, we are the people, and we say no, and we mean it. Professor Tomkins is not the people. Neither am I the people. We are the government, and they are the opposition. That is the situation. The opposition is absolutely entitled to vote and to argue against anything. Donald Cameron was absolutely right about that, but they are not entitled to veto it. That is the situation that the Tories have got themselves into. It's a situation that Ruth Davidson has got herself into in that old thought-out press conference when she appeared with a minister from the UK Government to veto the decision of the Scottish Parliament if it is that decision tomorrow. There is worse than that, because it is not just vetoing a majority in this Parliament, it is vetoing a manifesto commitment. Apparently, both those things can be vetoed because there is now a new Davidson definition of democracy. That is that everything has to have the approval of the Tory Party, either here or in government at Westminster, even though they only have one out of the 59 Scottish MPs, and even though they are a small minority in this Parliament. That is what is alarming, because that is anti-democratic. That is unacceptable in a democracy. An opposition does not have a veto. When we come to consider this tomorrow, when the Parliament votes, the judgment will be if that will of the Parliament express through majority and through manifesto prevails or whether it is vetoed by an opposition. That will tell us whether the Tories are a democratic party or not. In conclusion, Bruce Crawford was absolutely right about something else. Division is caused by people, not by debate. We need to find a way to bring this debate to a conclusion. The only way that we can do that is to allow the people to have their say. It does not matter how often Ruth Davidson shouts, but that is the crystal clear conclusion that anybody will draw in this debate. It must come to an end, and the only way it will come to an end, given the dangers of hard Brexit, given the reality of the situation in which all attempts at compromise have failed, there is only one way to bring this to an end, and that is for the people to vote. Those who are against the people voting are not democrats. Thank you, as members will know, the debate on Scotland's choice will continue tomorrow afternoon. There are no questions to be put as a result of today's business. The decisions on the motion and the amendments debated today will be taken at decision time tomorrow, and I remind members that if they have spoken in the debate today, they should be present at closing speeches tomorrow, which are due to begin at 4.43pm. We will now move on to members' business in the name of Rhoda Grant, and we will just take a few moments to change seats.


The Jedi are not SCPs, but if they were, how would the SCP Foundation contain them? The Jedi, the Sith, and all other types of Force users have a vast array of anomalous abilities at their disposal.  Raw power-wise, we have seen Force users rip star destroyers out of the sky. So how would the SCP Foundation contain such entities? Our simplest solution would be to obtain some Esalamars. These creatures nullify Force sensitivity within their perimeter due to being hunted by creatures who use the Force to hunt them. With a stacking effect, the more of them you have around. A prison stock with Esalamar would be a very effective containment. Except okay, let's say our Foundation spacecraft aren't capable of reaching the planet Merkur. What else could prove effective? The containment field. Used in Episode 2 in the Clone Wars animated series, a simple combination of electricity, magnets, and a bioscanor allow us to interrupt a Force user's concentration, taking away their ability to focus and use their force abilities. Of course, some might assert that the Sith might use that pain to fuel their power. I mean, they contain Count Dooku using this, but okay, let's just say it doesn't work. Carbonite. A frozen Force user is cut off from the Force during hibernation. Freeze, dried, Force user. Problem solved. And what more? As a last resort, we could remove their ability to manipulate the Force at all. And decommission them in the process, using the Bardotten Sphere. Also known as the Living Sphere, this artifact drains the Living Force from an entity. It can only be activated by a Force sensitive individual, but in a universe where the Force exists, it's not a stretch to imagine one of our researchers or agents or a practitioner of the Force that we can use for this purpose. It also acts as a battery that can be used to power advanced rituals, meaning that as a bonus, we could utilize said Force energy to another use, such as containing or neutralizing the Scarlet King. Who knows? Make sure to like and share this video, comment any creatures you would like to see containment procedures implemented for, and remember that patrons of Site 42 get priority for their Conprox requests.


Adobe Illustrator is now available on the iPad and in this video what I want to show you is how to use and edit the graphic and logo templates from the vector lab. So what I want to do here is when you order you'll come to a downloads page like this and let's download our file and this is the icons collection of graphic and logo templates. So I'm just going to tap download and these graphic and logo templates include fonts and everything you need to get started and what we want to do here is tap open in and then go save to files and then what I want to do is make a new folder so we'll call this the vector lab and then click done and then we'll tap save. So now when we go into our folders here let's tap on our vector lab folder and you'll see this zip file that we downloaded just tap that to unzip and if you get any kind of unzipping errors just completely shut down your iPad just power it down restart it that usually fixes everything. So we have our folder here and in our folder we have PDF guides for Illustrator this shows all the designs in there this shows the fonts and some tutorial videos and there's another PDF guide for Adobe Photoshop however this only works on the Photoshop desktop version it doesn't work on the iPad version just yet but it works on desktop and iPad for Illustrator and we have a preview image here which I'll show you this is just a png that previews the designs this is a growing collection so I'm currently adding new designs to it every week and if you order early you'll get all the designs for better price but what I want to do here is let me open up two of these so I'm going to open up number 20 and we're going to use this banner and we'll open up number 19 and instead of the lightning bolt in this cat's mouth we'll put the banner and we'll see how that looks so here we have our files for Adobe Illustrator Adobe Photoshop and there's also a fonts folder but what we need to do here is let's go into the Adobe Illustrator app go back to the home screen here and tap on import and open so what we want to do is let's navigate to our on my iPad folder and then there's our the vector lab folder there's the icons folder and delivery one Adobe Illustrator and remember it was number 19 and number 20 so let's open up number 20 first and you'll see here how there's no fonts loaded so what I want to do is with our text tool let's tap on that font and see what it is so this is sansita extra bold and instead of replace I'm just going to hit cancel because I found there's a little bit of a bug in this early version and usually if you do this workaround it'll load your font a lot better so let's get out of the text mode there let's go back to our text tool or type tool and let's just go like we're typing somewhere else on the screen and what I want to do here is let's on our text let's add a font so that was called sansita so here we'll go to the plus we'll go to add more continue and then let's navigate to that fonts folder so on my iPad vector lab and then fonts you'll see an info for fonts that's license information fonts are actually in this folder called fonts install these and this font was called sansita and there's multiple weights and we could load all the fonts here but I found that on iPad in general if you try to load a lot of fonts at once sometimes it crashes things or becomes difficult so this will probably get better with later versions of the iPad later versions of the os and later versions of adobe illustrator so let's just load this sansita font and see if we can get these loaded and get working so let's go select and let's just select all the versions of sansita and click open now this asks if you have the rights to use these fonts and you do because these are open source fonts and we'll tap add and it looks like this is still giving me problems it's i'm assigning it the sansita font and it's switching out of it so let's try this let's exit out of this and let's go back into this file and now all our fonts are loaded so if you if you're having trouble with your fonts just go out of the file then go back into it if that still doesn't work shut everything down restart your iPad and eventually get it to work i think adobe will get all these bugs worked out pretty soon anyway so this is looking good you'll notice we have our layers here a couple things i want to show you so one thing that took me a lot of figure out is with scaling so to select everything here what we can do is let's hold down the circle right here and now you'll notice if we scale it it doesn't scale proportionately so two fingers to undo but what we do is if we hold down that circle now it scales proportionately so the other thing i want to do is let's uh let's go into that cat file and get that ready and then we'll paste in this text here actually you know what we can do is just tap out of that and we'll select everything we need here so let's banner fill banner line work the vector lab and then what we can do here is go to copy this let's go into these other files i have this cat file already open the font is loaded and let's go into the layers here and let's turn off the lightning bolt and turn off some of this text actually i want to turn off all the text so we can just turn off that whole layer group and now what we can do is let's go to paste this and now we can put this banner right here i think that's already looking pretty good now in this file i have a little teeth overlay so we can get we can hold this and drag the teeth on top of there so now our teeth are going on top of this banner so what else can we do here let's edit some of the text so i actually like how it says the vector lab there let's turn on some of this other type that we had here so what we can do here is let's go to our keyboard there and just type illustrator and you'll see here this illustrator type is a little big for that area so what we can do is just decrease our letter spacing a little bit let's just select all layers here and what i'm going to do is let's just go here and tap here to copy it and i'm going to open up a t-shirt mock-up template for adobe illish here so again we can go into our layers here let's turn off this example graphic and highlight this layer that says your art goes on this layer and go there to paste again what we want to do is hold down our little circle and we can scale it proportionately now you're talking so i think this is looking pretty good you know we could go in here and change this fabric color say more of like an orange or something like that to match the cat's nose so there you go that's how to use the graphic and logo templates for adobe illustrator and also the t-shirt mock-up templates for adobe illustrator for ipad thanks for watching


2013 was a bad year for fish oil. Claims were crushed that the long chain of megathebrates in fish oil, EPN-DHA, would stop the progression of heart disease, and then DHA was associated with increased risk of prostate cancer, and monumentally failed to treat macular degeneration. This over-the-top rhetoric sounded a little suspicious, and indeed the paper was retracted because the author sells some rival supplement that he failed to disclose. But he does have a point. I covered the fish oil failure for heart disease, what about the increased cancer risk? Men with the highest circulating levels in their blood of the long chain of megathebrate DHA were found to be at higher risk for prostate cancer. Though a subsequent compilation of all such studies suggested EPA, the other major long chain of megathebrate in fish and fish oil, may be more closely associated with increased cancer risk. Either way, these long chain of megathebrates have been promoted for prevention of heart disease and cancer. But now that we know that not only does there appear to be no benefit for death, heart attack, or stroke, but there may be an elevation in cancer risk. The general recommendation to increase the intake of these fats should consider its potential risks. How could eating more fish or fish oil increase cancer risk? Well, there are some industrial pollutants like PCBs linked to increased prostate cancer risk. And the primary source of exposure in the general population is believed to be through diet from fish, meat, and dairy products. If you do a supermarket survey, the PCBs shown in white here are highest in freshwater fish and lowest in vegans. Cannibals take note. No, that's just how they label the market basket of plant foods. Though vegans have been tested and were found to be significantly less polluted, including the PCB specifically linked to prostate cancer. But this study here was done in North America where people don't eat a lot of fish, and indeed even the group with the highest DHA levels weren't that high. And so maybe the confounding factor was meat consumption in general, not just fish. And that lower meat consumption may be the reason for the lower rates of prostate cancer in the lower DHA group. As the consumption of well-done meat is associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer, an intake should be restricted. We also used to think omega-3s could protect us from a rhythm as abnormal heart rhythms like atrial fibrillation. Millions suffer from the condition which causes an irregular heartbeat and a higher risk of stroke and death. But fish and fish oil consumption does not appear effective for preventing it or treating it. Other arithmias can be life-threatening and cause sudden death. Despite initial encouraging results, more recent studies have not only failed to reduce sudden cardiac death with omega-3s, but actually increased mortality in cardiac patients. For example, men with heart disease advised to eat more oily fish or supplied with fish oil capsules were found to have higher risk of cardiac death, maybe because of the contaminants in fish such as mercury. In either case, given the inconsistent benefits the potential adverse effects, you know, omega-3s must be prescribed with caution and generalized recommendations to increase fish intake or to take fish oil capsules needs to be reconsidered.


Before I forget, if you want to know more about our solutions, because in 15 minutes, it's impossible to show everything, please scan this QR code. This gives you a possibility to book a demonstration, a trial, basically to have a way to test our software with your real data, so ensure that you have this scanned. So who knows about Topodot? Some hands. OK, two, three, four. OK, not bad. But well, for the ones that don't know about Topodot, we are a software company developing our tools since 2011. So basically, we are a company based in Orlando, Florida. And we have offices in Portugal, in Romania, in Dubai, in China, in France, due to a very specific reason. So we support our customers 24-7. So this is what this community of more than 6,000 users across 700 companies stay with us and, of course, believe that they can enhance their workflow with our solutions. So what Topodot offers? Like I said, we offer a software that provides you a way to produce the foundations of a digital twin at the lowest possible cost. So what does this mean? It means that everyone is working with LiDAR data, with mobile mapping systems, static scanners, drones. Well, everyone is using point clouds. But either you or your engineers well, at the end of the workflow, you need to have a workable data for your road, rail, for your engineering project. So no one likes to deal with thousands of gigabytes of data with millions of points. Everyone wants to have the right insights, the right CAD drawings, or GIS database for their projects. So what we are offering is basically a way to simplify a point cloud to something workable, well, in this case, related to the topic of today, into GIS data. So let me give you some very brief explanation of the workflow. So you guys are capturing the data with systems, like I said, mobile, terrestrial, aerial. And you have point clouds. So this is the first part of your workflow. The second part is when top of that starts. So it's when you start a productive process to extract information from point cloud to get something workable. So related to GIS, to get some polylines, to get some points, and to get some polylines into the R3D. So this is the main objective. So having a productive way to extract insightful data from your point cloud. So top of that offers solutions for managing effectively the data to assessing the quality of your point cloud data before even the extraction. And then, of course, you start the extraction in a productive way. And this is part of a productive process that leads you to be competitive in the market and basically to provide any kind of GIS CAD 3D model deliverable for your customers. So at the end of the workflow, well, you can say to your customer, yes, we deliver digital twins. Yes, we deliver 3D models. Yes, we can deliver any geospatial data from LiDAR point clouds. So the focus of our software is mainly in transportation corridors. So if you are here for indoors, sorry, I have bad news for you. You can leave. Just joking. But we mainly focus in outdoors. So this means streets, roadways, railways. So basically, all of these applications you can run for GIS asset inventory, asset management. Basically, as I said, to extract the relevant information for your maintenance and operations. A quick example, you need to maintain a railway. You need to know where are all those traffic signs. So basically, you can extract them from LiDAR data and have them in your asset management system, basically for maintenance and a good operation. The same related to roads. You can basically have all your paint marks if you want to, for example, run a maintenance project to check what needs to be repainted or not. And basically, it's endless the ideas that you can have here to use LiDAR point clouds to get GIS information. And not only that, but also if I would like to. OK, great. So not only that, but from the point cloud and the extractive data, you can also do analysis and report insights to your customers. So this means that, imagine, you are running a project for a municipality and they need to understand in the road network what needs to be maintained in terms of pavement. So they need to discover where are all those issues and the stresses on the pavement. So this is a tough process to handle with point clouds. But it's a very simple one if you use, for example, the pavement stress analysis, where you will automatically detect all these distresses and report in a simple GIS format data telling your customers where are those distresses, what is the size of them, and where should they focus on their road maintenance operations. So this is just a quick example of the advanced analysis and reporting documentation that you can also perform to your customers using point clouds and top of that software. So well, rather than speaking a lot, let's see some examples. And like I said, well, today is to show you a way to optimize the extraction of GIS data with point clouds. So let's see how you can, from point clouds, extract lines to your 3D, how to extract points to your 3D, and how to extract a polygon. Because if you learn this data set in a shapefile or geodatabase, for example, in an ASRI platform, well, you need this basically for planning, for example. So let's see how to extract the painter's stripes. So you have the point clouds. Like I said, if you are running a mobile mapping system, you also have the images. So with this tool, you can basically select using the intensity of the data and ask the tool to vectorize for you a 3D polyline related to your paint stripes. So either the continuous ones or the dashed ones, basically you get a line from the point cloud with all the information about width, length, et cetera. And from here, you can tell to your customers, look, you have this amount of paint stripes. If you want to repaint them, well, here's some insights that you can use for maintenance and operations. So a very simple process. Like I said, start point, a direction, and that's it. The software vectorized for you automatically. Let's see another line feature example, a guardrail. So you have your guardrail. Everyone knows the shape of one. So you have the curve with region. You can create your own templates. And from here, you can inform the software, look. I want to extract from here up to the end of the guardrail. And you see what's the dimension. So 2,000 meters of an automatic extraction in less than five seconds. And you have the top and the bottom of the guardrail. And this is, well, you are working with the LiDAR data. So this is a very accurate process where you can see those lines automatically placed in there. And while you are surveyors, you are engineers, you are cartographers, so you need to be precise. So quality control is very important in this process. And it's available in every tool. Let's see now a polygon feature example, especially within urban environments. You don't want to vectorize this manually. You want to have your driveways, your ADA ramps, automatically available and ready to be placed in the ground using the point cloud data. Of course, none all of them are similar, but you can adjust them. Again, you have a quality control process where all these assets can be basically transformed from a point cloud to a 3D shape ready to be used in a GIS environment. Let's see another really interesting case. For example, how to get the vegetation for many reasons, security for maintenance, et cetera. So, well, you have, again, millions of points, but you just need the outline of this area. So how to get it? Well, it was even faster. So I could even not explain. So from all this cluster of a vegetation area, you get this line. But look, if you want it in the ground, that's not a problem. The software can do that for you. So you don't need to struggle to vectorize this area, like not seeing it well, et cetera. So the software can outline this for you in an easy way. So this is a really cool tool. And now let's go, well, speaking about GIS, everyone wants to extract traffic signs, light poles, trees, et cetera. So in an automatic way, this tool is identifying in the point cloud any vertical element, in this case, a sign, a pole, a tree. So it's automatically predicting and giving you as the least categorized and sorted by type, where you can just, as a user, click in Accept or skip. Well, you skip the ones you don't want to extract, and you accept the ones that you want to have in your GIS deliverable. So, well, you can understand how tedious is this process. So having a tool that can give all these insights for you in an automated way, well, it's invaluable, right? So, well, what's the purpose of Topodot? And why should you have or use Topodot for this type of applications and not any other software? So simple recap of the workflow. Like I said, you have point clouds acquired by static scanners, by mobile mappers, by drones or aircrafts, et cetera. And you need to have a way of simplifying the point cloud to get something workable. I can bet with any one of you that if you ask 10 engineers to get a measurement, for example, for a traffic sign, like give me the height of this traffic sign, you ask for 10 different engineers and you'll get 10 different answers. Because each one of them will measure from bottom to top in different ways. And even if someone choose 10 centimeters left or right, this will provide different measurements. So you want to work with accurate data, with accurate results.  And you don't want them to work with heavy data.   Oh, you want the traffic signs? OK, I can extract for you. You want the paint lines or the edge of the road? OK, I can extract for you.  So I will simplify your life. And basically, you provide the deliverable. Well, since the topic today is GIS, so you provide the deliverable as an export option from topodot in Shapefile, in Geodatabase, in KML. But not only. Well, today I had the opportunity to make a different presentation. It was more cut-related. So you can also provide DGN, DWG, or just a single Excel file for any engineer to work with this information.  Why? Well, I invite you to walk around to see different options, and then to stop by topodot booth and see why topodot and, well, not any other software. Well, mainly because of this. And I can see some faces here, some well-known faces from topodot community. And I think it's the reason why they chose topodot and not any other software. It's due to our break-even point. It's due to the productivity. Well, you don't want to walk around and look for software prices. You want to look around and see where you can find the most productive process. Forget about the software prices. Even us, we are not the most expensive. We are not the cheapest one. But you need to think about how long a technician will work with point clouds to get a deliverable. Because, well, if you have a very cheap software, but the engineer will take two months to get a deliverable, well, just go for another option that makes an engineer work just two days to get a deliverable. So this is why you should think about investing in productivity. Because, well, as any company or as any governmental agency, we need to save time because time is money. It's our public money or it's our private money. And we need to be efficient. So it's why investing in productivity. You can leave any project to high profits. You can leave any company to high returns. So I can say that this is why you should look for top of that.  Videos are great, but for you to really assess the software, put your hands on it, work with your past projects, and just assess the quality of the work.


I'm definitely going to pre-order that. Oh, God. I shouldn't. I'm on a bit of buying ban! Hello, welcome back to my channel. As you can see, we're in a bit of a new location. You would have seen this in my reading my first buddy read vlog already, but this is the first kind of like, I'm gonna say sit down but I'm standing up. The first, like, just talking to the camera video that I'm filming here. This is my new flat at uni. So today we're gonna be talking about my most anticipated releases that are coming out. Both at the end of this year... Don't look at me! Both at the end of this year and the one that comes out early next year. Most of them are series finishers that I'm excited about because I have a special sense of satisfaction when I read a book in a series. It's like, I don't know. It's just good, really, for like, I'm further in that series or I've finished that series.  Please let me know down below if you are excited about any of these releases coming soon and let's just talk about them. So the first one is The Toll by Neil Shusterman. This is the final book in the Psythe series. It's a really good series actually. I enjoyed the second book a lot more than the first book. The first book was like a three star for me, but then I gave Thunderhead the second book in a series five stars. So I'm very excited for this book and to see where it leads on from Thunderhead. So in Psythe, we're into a world where death has been eradicated by human science and how much we're able to do now, but in order to control the population, people still need to die. And so it's basically the Psythe's job to glean people, essentially kill them, and different Psythe's are different methods, different ways of choosing because they're gonna glean. And we follow Seacher and Rowan as they train to become Psythe's apprentices and then eventually to become Psythe's. There's a little bit of romance in the story, but it's like not too overpowering that if you're like me, I don't like in fantasy books when all the cool elements of the fantasy book get overtaken by a romance. Like that's how I felt like Wicked Fox when like it had so much potential, so much interesting magical elements, and then the whole book was the romance. So this isn't like that.  The cliffhanger that Thundered ended on. This is all gonna be no spoilery, so obviously if it's something like Thundered where we've had the second book in the series, I'm not gonna spoil it, but the ending. Also, one of the new characters we met in the last book was Grayson Toliver, and I don't want to spoil what happens in that, but he plays quite a big part in that book and the name is the Toll. Grayson Toliver, the Toll. So it indicates I think he's gonna play a big, big part in this book. Also, I think he's the one in the center of the cover. So while Seachin Roe and it kind of been like our lead character, been our lead characters in the first two books, I think he's gonna have a much, much bigger role and kind of moves the story like onwards. I really hope it continues with like the political element, the political intrigue-ness of the last book because that's why I enjoyed Thundered so much. The first one, like I didn't feel like it went into the whole political workings of that society as much as I wish it had, and then in Thundered it did, and I was like... Here we go. I love like political dealings in fantasy books. Like I've talked about, you know, the very nice ago you had that as well, and I just love it. I just love how political systems work in fantasy books. I love it so much. If anyone knows, that's a very niche that's a very niche thing I enjoy. If anyone knows any other books, they're very good political conflicts and dealings and secrecy in fantasy books, let a gal know. The next one is Girls of Storm and Shadow by Natasha and Yang. This is the second book in this series. I think it's gonna be a three book series as well. In Girls of Storm and Shadow we follow Leigh, who is of the paper case system, which is the lowest of three tiers, and every year a selection of paper girls get chosen to go and be the Demon King's concubines. There's heavy trigger awnings for rape in this series, but I personally think it deals with it really, really well, and I spoke about this in my Firefire Books of the Year series because... series? My Firefire Books of the Year video, which I'll link up above. You had the selection of girls who are all his concubines, and in each one of them Natasha managed to, I guess, show a different response. You know, different responses that people have to that kind of trauma. People deal with it in different ways and she managed to kind of, each of the girls reacted in a different way, which I thought was really, really well done and gave a lot of representation and depth, I guess, depth to the story. It really captured my heart because, yeah, I just felt like you really felt for these girls so much in such a difficult position, but they were also so strong, and I remember I read it. I went and I bought loads of books, as I've probably said before when I was in Florida, and Barnes and Noble, I was like carrying around all these books. And there were so many I'd been excited to read. I was like, I'm gonna read that next. The first one I picked up was Girls of Paper and Fire, because something just drew me to it, and on holiday I was just like, chance-fixed by it. I really, really loved it. In this book I'm really looking forward to Leigh building her cause against Stephen King and the corruption of those in power. I really hope she's gonna try and fight that, and we're gonna see some... I mean, it's the middle book, and usually in middle books you expect a bit of a lull. Obviously, when I was talking about The Thunderhead, that wasn't a lull. That was like a... But usually with these kind of series is the middle book is a little bit chiller, a little bit more time with the characters, and I enjoy that. But looking forward to Leigh becoming more of a leader, I guess. I'm guessing that's gonna happen.   I also really hope that she manages to keep the atmosphere that we had in the first book. It had such a great atmosphere, and I think that's so difficult when a book so drastically switches locations. Obviously I'm not gonna spoil anything, but there is gonna be a drastic switch of location, I think, from a majority of the book. And I think that's so so difficult for an author, because it's almost like you're writing an entire different book. A lot of the atmosphere you've set up in quite an enclosed space we were in for the first book is suddenly like torn apart very drastically. I spoke about how in the Very Nice and Girls series, the kind of world slowly expanded, and this might do that, but I feel like it's gonna be like but I'm super excited to read this. It's top of my Christmas wish list. It's up there. Like everyone, please just get me in. So next is Supernova by Marissa Mayer, which is the last in the Renegades series. So in Renegades we follow... Oh my god, Nova. In Renegades we follow Nova, who has been raised as part of the anarchists, who are the villains in the story.  She decides and her group decide for her to go undercover, so she can learn more about their workings in order for her group to take them down. However, of course she's gonna gain feelings and friendships and be confused and have different loyalties and... So that's essentially the book. I've had very mixed feelings about this series. The first book I remember reading and I was like, I gave it three stars, which isn't terrible, but I loved The Unicornicles by her and I felt like it was like a major step down for her in my opinion. But in the case of the second book I felt like it picked up a bit. There was still issues with pacing and feeling like not much happened, but I gave it four stars because I read it in like a day, so... Oh, the sun has gone. I read it in like a day, so I felt like I had to give it four stars. I really enjoyed it. I flew through it. So it was a step up. I'm hoping the last one is another step up, although part of me thinks it's probably gonna be a full star maximum. I don't know. I'm excited to read Heartless by Marissa Mayer as well, which I have with me... Give me a sec. Which we have here, because it's kind of like a retelling, like The Unicornicles, which I feel like is what she's best at. I don't know. I'm excited to read this. I'm nervous to read Supernova, but then the series is done. So I'm like, wait off my chest. I really hope that a lot happens in this book. I want to be action-packed because I feel like that was the one thing we're missing in the last two books. Like, it's a superhero series, so you're wanting to be like bam, bam, bam, bam, bam. And then it's not. Everyone's just like, like, sitting around talking. I just want a lot of things to go wrong. I want a lot of things to go right. I want it to be thermal, but I want it to be like 100 action scenes, essentially. That's what I'm hoping we're gonna get. The next book that is on my most anticipated list to come out is The Starless Sea by Erin Morgenstern. I haven't read The Night Circus yet, but I really want to, but this book, it sounds like we're right on my alley. I haven't heard anyone talk about, like, I've heard people mention it, but I haven't heard anyone read it yet. There are arcs out already. I haven't heard anyone think. Part of me, there is part of me. I was on Waterstones looking at the upcoming releases, and I saw the cover, the Waterstones cover, and I was like, I'm filming this like a couple of days before my student loan comes in, and when that comes in, I might be pre-ordering this. So the lead character finds a mysterious book in a library that when he reads it, part of it tells the story of something that happened in his life.  He is led to a library hidden under the surface of the earth. I don't even know how to explain the last part of this synopsis, simply. Like, I don't know how to simplify this to you, so I'm just going to really get out from the Waterstones website. What Zachary finds in this curious place is more than just a buried home for books and their guardians. It is a place of lost cities and seas, lovers who pass notes under doors and across time, and of stories whispered by the dead.  Together with Mirabel, a fierce pink-head protector of the place, and Dorian, a handsome barefoot man with shifting alliances, Zachary travels the twisting tunnels, darkened stairwells, crowded ballrooms, and sweetly soaked shores of this magical world discovering his purpose in both the mysterious book and his own life. Whoo! You can't tell me that doesn't excite you. You can't tell me that doesn't make you go, that last bit with the S's really tested me. I had like a, I had to go to voice training when I was a kid because I said my S's like, like, I can't even do it now, but that S's tested me too many S's, so I was like a bead of sweat. I really love Whimsical Writing, which is what I've heard her writing is like. I love the vagueness but also like the explosion of imagery you get when you read that synopsis. Oh my god, I'm trying to read it so bad, I'm trying to read it so bad, so I'm very excited to get it to come out and that's obviously the only one of these which is not part of a series which I've been reading so yes, I'm definitely going to pre-order that, oh god, I shouldn't, I'm on a book buying ban! And the last book that I'm very very excited to be released is King of Crows by Libra Bray which is part of the Divinus series. Now if you haven't seen my Buddy Read video, my first ever Buddy Read video, go check that out, it's a mess, I'm a mess. I'm actually filming it now currently as well, I'm reading The Divinus and I'm planning to finish it today, I've got that left, so I'll be filming hopefully everything on the same day, we're just not knowing me, probably not. I'm obviously only just reading the first new series now, I've got a layer of dreams with me here, woohoo! But I'm so excited to come out the start of next year, I love finishing serieses so I think I'm going to get through this series quite quickly, I'm just so excited for all the books to be out so I can just have them all at my disposal. It's set in 1920s New York, we meet a collection of people, many of whom have special powers and they're all trying to stop a dark and evil force from terrorizing New York who is committing murders and it's very mysterious, very spooky, ukidukimuki, it's got scooby-doo gang vibes, we love that. It is a really great story, I'm still not sure I'm going to rate this yet, you'll all know if you've seen that video but the fact that there's three more books in this series, god I'm so excited. So yeah, very excited for King of Crows to come out soon. So there we have it, that is all my most anticipated upcoming releases, as I said do let me know if you're excited for the news too or what your most anticipated reads that are coming out. I'd love to hear so I can get more excited about more books that are coming out even though I should just read the ones I've got. So yeah I hope you enjoyed this video and make sure you like, subscribe, ring the bell, comment, give me all that interaction because I'm lonely. Thank you so much for watching to this point and I'll see you soon in another video and I hope you're well until then, bye.