Let's try it again. Oh, let's see how fast that was. What's up, guys? And welcome back to the John and Q channel. In today's video, I'm gonna be going over this tactical fanny pack that I have around me. If you guys like this bag, make sure to use my discount code JQ10 to get 10% off your order. Go to 945industries.com. All right, let's get to the video. Let me quickly take this off and kind of show you what I'm talking about. Before I start this video, just a quick disclaimer. This was sent to me by 945industries and I am making several YouTube shorts and this YouTube long form video for them to showcase the product, showcase how I do it and how I would run it in kind of the real world scenario. So just for you guys now. So let's get into it. So this is the, what I like to call tactical fanny pack. It gives people who want to conceal carry a firearm, more adaptability and more of a concealed carry option. Now I know you can have a holster and you can put it on your waistband. You could have a appendix, four, five, six o'clock, whatever your style of carrying is, like that's okay. But I found that in the summertime, you could start printing. It can get bulky depending on what gun you actually want to carry. I mean, even me, it deters me from carrying but I still carry because I need to carry. And so when 945industries and I kind of, you know, put our heads together as to what we could do and collaborate with. I thought, man, this is a really good product. And there's a couple of features that I love about this bag that I'm going to share with you. So here is the bag on me. And as you saw there, putting the bag on was very easy. And you kind of want to have, you know how you sling a rifle? You kind of want to sling it the same way, but I'm right-handed. So I'm going to be slinging it the opposite. So on my left shoulder, so that when I go and pull this tab, just like that, I can reach, grab my concealed carry from the holster inside the bag and then I'm good to go. I'm ready to go to work. For those of you who want to know, I'm concealed carrying a six-hour X-Macro. And yes, this is loaded right now because I'm at the range. And I'll be showcasing you a couple of the drills that I've been doing to kind of get better at drawing from this bag. So 945industries was like, hey, what kind of gun do you carry? I'm like six-hour X-Macro with a red dot and they're like perfect. So they sent out the bag, but also this right here. It's actually, this right here is the holster. It's orange. I actually, I love that color too. But there's also this really thick Velcro attached to the holster, which the inside is Velcro. Well, this is Velcro, but then it attaches so you can kind of customize it, you know, however you want to carry your concealed carry. And so what I like to do is I like to actually attach it to my bag kind of in this diagonal, you know, way, just because this is how I would normally kind of gravitate towards grabbing my concealed carry if it was on my chest. And so it's pretty easy to grab, to maneuver and it fits in the bag pretty well. And this bag is pretty big and deep so it can fit a full-size gun if need be. So it's actually pretty genius in how they designed it. And on the inside here, you can see these two tabs that are flopping around here. And so because I'm coming from a diagonal carry, I want to flip this tab on the inside and leave it alone. And as I'm zipping the tactical fanny pack, I'll zip both sides and I'll leave this tab open kind of on the top here so that it's kind of lying just like this. And so then whenever I need it, hopefully I never do, I'm ready to go. So as I've been performing these drills, I've been starting with my hand on the tab just so I have a good feel for it before I try to reach for it. I'll be starting here in this position with my hand on the tab. So right now, that was a 1.70 with a split time of .014. So that right there is a pretty good time coming out of a holster, especially out of a zippered bag like this one. So let me do this really quick. And so kind of the, let me zip it up, there we go. So a couple of the challenges that I've seen from this bag is that when I first started pulling the tab, I gravitated towards pull tab, zipper, and then I'm drawing. But I realized like, yeah, I got can be fast in doing that, but also it could be faster. Let me explain. So as we zip up both sides, what you want to do is pull, right? As hard and as fast as you can in a downward forward motion, but I realized in doing so, this zipper got stuck because it's not going, it's not going down in front of me. It's going down and to the side like diagonally from me. So I decided, and I found out that if I pull the tab, hard down and to the left in the direction of the zipper and the way it's going, I'm gonna have more success getting that concealed carryout as fast as possible and then I can go to work. So let me kind of demonstrate slowly and then we can kind of speed it up, okay? So here's a tab of pull in that direction where the zipper is going and then I'll grab.  So a little faster, it'll look like this. So even that right there, I felt was kind of not as fast as I could have done it, but still it was rather quick. And so if you're out and about with your family, with yourself and something happens where there's an active shooter, like I feel like I would be confident enough to perform that maneuver. This tactical fanny pack gives you the tools to be successful in that scenario. So let me try to run it in a drill format and we'll see how fast we can do it. So that was last was 1.70. Let's see what we can do next. Oh, hold on. Let me holster up and then I'll show you the time here. Look at this. Oh, hold on. This was a 1.55 with a split of 0.16.  You know, I can fit my full size phone in here just fine. You could do business cards, credit cards, whatever. And on the backside here, there's another zipper. You can put, you know, money, whatever, lotion. I don't know why you wouldn't need lotion. Maybe you got dry hands, but whatever you might need or an extra mag, you can put it in the tactical fanny pack. So really guys, like this is kind of a genius design. This to me is just simple. It's plain and it's very minimalistic, which I love and it doesn't really draw attention to you.  And so it's not, it's not very like in your face. This is a very tactical bag.  And so that's why I like it. And if you want to get this back for yourself, go to their website, 945industries.com and enter code JQ10 to get 10% off, okay? I will link that down below for you guys. But I would highly recommend you guys getting one, but also going to the range, putting it on and training with it as much as possible because that's really what's going to make you get even better with getting your concealed carry out of this bag. So let's go one more time, throw out a couple of shots here. Let's try it again. Whew! All right, that one was 1.21 with a split of 0.19. To be honest, like the fact that you can get that quick out of a, you know, a concealed carry style bag that's on your person and on your chest, that's amazing. So I appreciate you guys watching. I think at some point maybe I'll do like a follow-up video in about a month or two. Once I like, I can, you know, once I've been out there in the real world, you know, around my family, other people and kind of how it feels, if it's heavy, if it gets heavy, if it gets sweaty on you, stuff like that. So maybe down the road here, we'll do another kind of recap video on this tactical bag. So thanks for watching guys and I'll catch you in the next Johnny Q video. Peace. All right, one more time. Can we go faster? Oh, let's see how fast that was. That was 1.30, split time of 0.14. So I mean, it's still pretty fast, man. That's pretty crazy. Let's try it again. Oh.


The following is a clip from my popular YouTube live streams answering your questions. If you're brand new to my channel, don't forget to hit the subscribe button. Hit the bell so you could be notified of new videos. And if any time this video resonates with you, please hit that like button so I can be seen in the YouTube algorithms.  It's direct, a little tough love, and a lot of heart. And occasionally I use expletives to enhance a sentence. So if an F-bomb or two isn't your cup of tea, I suggest logging off right now. Lastly, these are my thoughts, my perceptions, my opinions. By no means do I suggest this is the truth. You have to decide the truth for yourself. I'm a bit of a contrarian. So my advice goes contrary to public opinion and traditional expectations. All right, take it away, Jonathan.  This is a narrative I hear over and over and over again by many of my contemporaries. And I think this was brought on by the book, The Rules, which basically talks about playing hard to get, to pander to his fear of losing you. And if there's this fear of losing you, he's going to step up to be in relationship. And I've heard some wacky things like you shouldn't contact a guy for five days and make sure you don't post anything on his social media account so he doesn't know what's going on in your life. And that way, that will create all kinds of anxiety for him.  I've even heard from one dating coach that suggests to women that they should create conflict even before a first date. I'm going to repeat that, to create conflict before a first date, like actually canceling at the last minute, just to see how the guy responds to conflict. And well, I could see the merits of that on one level just to see how someone, but to do something intentionally, to intentionally not contact someone for days, to intentionally not post things on your social media, and to intentionally play hard to get. What's the real benefit of doing that? Because if you're doing it from an intentional place, if you're intentionally trying to create some anxiety, trying to create some fear, some pain in this man, how can he ever really trust you? And I want you to think about it. Let's just put this in reverse for a second. How do you ladies feel when a man disappears for five days? How does that feel? You get, become anxious. You start oftentimes chasing someone. And that's, and you almost act in a desperate place.  Is that what you really want? I hope to God that's not what you want. I really hope to God. Because that's not what's going to create long lasting love. All of this game playing rhetoric you hear over and over again isn't going to create long lasting love. Because ultimately, there is a pain that can, that will actually create more connection with him. However, what I really want to stress in this moment is how to avoid playing the games. How to avoid to, so you don't even have to play any of these games.  Well, I think it's really important to understand the, it's really important to understand the importance of developing the friendship early on in the dating process to develop the friendship because friendship builds trust. I'm gonna repeat that, friendship builds trust. And the problem to date is most people are spending more time on their phones texting and communicating over their phone instead of actually doing things together to build the friendship. But Jonathan, I'm in a long distance situation. Well, let me tell you something. All of that cumulative time on the telephone isn't really building trust. It's not building real intimacy because it's not a real relationship. And it's not real friendship. It's a cyber friendship. It's an internet friendship. It's a virtual friendship. It's a electronic friendship, but it's not a friendship of actually being there for one another. And that's where trust comes by building the actual friendship in the relationship. And I'm talking about all the long lines of also being physically intimate with someone. Well, let me reframe that, rewind. Physically intimate meaning I'm just talking about kissing.  I'll get to that in a second. So how do you avoid even getting to a point where you have to play these games where you have to make a man feel pain to actually wanna be with you? Well, then it's gonna require doing social activities, hobbies, mutual interests together, spending time with family and friends. That's how you build the deeper roots of trust in a relationship. The deep roots of trust isn't built because the two of you like sushi and the two of you like stand up paddle board and the two of you like the rolling stones. That's not going to build trust that certainly feels familiar when they like the same things but what's gonna cause building trust? It's actually doing things together. And yet sadly, people today spend so little time doing things together. And worse, you're meeting total strangers today.  If you play the no contact game for five days, here's the thing, if he's just not that into you, he's already moved on.  The real men who want a fully committed relationship and I gotta tell you, this is becoming fewer and far between for men because ladies, you've made it so easy to have sex with you. You've made it so easier. The barrier to entry is almost a couple dates and the guy can easily get in bed with you. And by the way, if you're in a long distance situation, it's, I mean, a guy could talk to you for months and he's almost guaranteed to get laid when he meets you.  This is, it's so important to understand the mechanics to a healthy, happy relationship.  And if you really wanna connect with your heart because this is what love would do and this is how love would respond is I highly recommend checking out my book, What the Heck Is Self Love Anyway? By the way, there's a link below to get all the books I recommend. This is a journey of personal development, self-help and spiritual work.   It's become so bastardized. And yet people are still meeting this way. So, but it's gonna require a lot more intentionality in the process and ladies, you oftentimes just give your power away to men. You are in charge of your relationship, destiny, not a guy. So I'm inviting you to be more intentional in the process and not leave it up to the man because here's the thing, all this game playing isn't going to work. It's gonna require actually building the roots, building the threads together, the roots to deeper trust.  So, how are you going to avoid this? Build the friendship. You know, when you build the friendship, you don't need to use pain to actually get a man addicted to you.


Hey guys, what is up? Welcome to my channel. So I caved and I picked up a couple of items from the Chanel Le Beige collection for summer 2021. So I'm a Chanel noob. So if you want to get the opinions from somebody who is new to the brand, then just keep watching. Hi guys, if you're new here, my name is Morgan. I am a product knowledge enthusiast. I just love knowing anything and everything about all the new makeup on the market and sharing my thoughts with you guys. And slowly but surely, I've been dipping into Chanel makeup just because I love the compacts and most of the time, I think their collections are absolutely stunning. So they recently launched the Le Beige Summer of Glow collection and I didn't pick up everything from the collection. As you know, Chanel is not the cheapest brand. While I'm still getting to know the brand, I want to be picky about what I pick up. So some of the key pieces that I did not pick up from this launch, they actually launched their bronzing cream in a deeper shade. I still have the OG original formula before they changed it. I've not yet tried the new formulation, but it's really great that they did come out with a deeper shade. There are other videos covering this deeper bronzing cream. I did not pick it up because there's no way it was gonna work on me anyways. And I'm very happy with the one that I do have right now. So I did pass on that, but that one is definitely awesome because they've never had a deeper shade of their bronzing cream. So I know a lot of you are really excited about that. I am as well. There also seems to be a healthy glow illuminating powder. This was not on the website when I first initially purchased from the launch, but very cool. They also launched some nail polishes. And then there's also four Rouge Coco flashes. We'll get into that. I picked up one shade. And then lastly, there is two healthy glow natural eyeshadow palettes, which I picked both up. So today I'm going to be covering both of the eyeshadow palettes that came out and also one of the Cocoa Rouge flash lipsticks. A lot of you guys seem interested in me covering this collection. And a couple of you commented that you'd love to hear my thoughts on this as somebody who has never tried the eyeshadow formula and a few of the other items as well. So as I get acquainted with the brand, I thought I would take you along with me. There were two eyeshadow palettes. They are quints that came out. And let's start off with the packaging. I did pick both up. So these are the Le Beige healthy glow natural eyeshadow palettes. The boxes they came in are so pretty, just so simplistic. And it looks like this. And the two shades that they came out with were intense and tender. We'll start off with a look at tender here. The packaging of the compacts are the same. Oh my gosh, very classic, beautiful Chanel. These are made in France with an 18 month shelf life. So as we open it up, they do come in a sleeve. By the way, I just took that out. As you open it up, you have this almost neutral pinky toned palette right here. I'm gonna show you the shade intense now, which looks like this. And then you open it up and this one has more greeny earthy tones. So these are the two. You can see there are still more neutral color stories, which I expect Chanel to kind of be. They aren't known for vibrancy. All right, I am going to take you in as close as I can. And we're gonna do one eyeshadow palette on each eye. I have primed my eyelid with just a little bit of the Kylie Cosmetics Concealer. This is on sale right now. I really like this concealer, random. Expectation-wise, I'm not expecting these eyeshadows to have a lot of pigment, typically luxury eyeshadows. It's not about the opacity of the shade. It's about the finish of the shade. Normally something more wearable. And I have swatched these and I can definitely tell. We don't have a lot of opacity, which is fine. It matters how they apply. So both of these eyeshadow quints are $65. They are not cheap for the amount of product that you are getting. So taking a look at the finishes of the pan. We have what looks like two of like a satin mat. So they're not completely flat, which is very, very flattering for more mature eyelids. That's gonna be this guy and this guy right here. This one is more of a true satin, not quite as matte as the two that I just pointed out. Then we have this shade right here, which is a shimmer. And then this shade right here, which is gonna have a little bit more of a glittery finish. You'll see that's the second shade down. So you can see even on my hand, these are the two satin mats. The one shade that has a little bit more of a satin finish. Then we have the shimmer and the glitter shade. So we are going to start off with this shade down here. These shades do have a little bit of kickback. From what I've heard from the feedback from you guys, I've been told that this formula is a little bit better than the formula that you're used to from Chanel. I cannot speak on that. But this shade had a little bit more pigment than I was expecting.  Really blends out with ease. Does have a little bit of kickback. Very, very pretty. I like that. Now we're gonna go in, of course with the deeper shade right here. And you can definitely see these are not a drier matte formula. They do have a satin matte finish. Again, leaving eyelids looking less dry if you have a more mature eyelid. And as you can see that pretty much blended itself. It doesn't have a ton of depth to it. It definitely added depth to the look. But I can agree that it definitely blended itself out, which is quite impressive. Always something I look for. Yeah, two days ago was my birthday. I didn't tell you guys because I'm weird about birthday. Day 14th for whatever date this video is going up. And I used an eyeshadow palette that was not a luxury or super high quality brand. And it took me a while to blend out the crease shades. And I was reminded why I love a good luxury palette because there's something about luxury and high end makeup typically that works itself out. Kind of morphed into one shade, but very beautiful. I'm gonna go in with the lighter shade that we used first. And the lower lash line, doing a pretty simple look. And now we're going with the deeper shade. Next up, we are going to take just a little bit of the satin shade right here. We're gonna use this as an underbrow highlight. Very subtle, kind of a nondescript shadow, but it like completes the look. You know, there's a place for it. And we're just gonna put some right here. This would actually be very pretty all over the lid. And on the lid, it doesn't have as much of that satin finish that I pointed out on my hand. Actually has more of a satin matte finish. Gonna clean that brush off. And I wanna try out the satin shade right here, which pulls a little bit more pink by swatch. It looks almost a little bit more champagne-y in the pan, but by swatch, you can see it's pinker. Ooh, that's really, really gorgeous. I'm just gonna put this all over the lid. Subtle, nothing too crazy, of course. Very easy to use. Okay, lastly, we're gonna take a little bit of this shade. This shade was a little bit more crumbly on swatch. Like, I feel like I really had to press it and we're gonna try it first with a brush. I just kinda wanna press this on top. And while it's adding the shimmer dimension, it's not really doing much. Gonna try with my finger. Much better with a finger. Hopefully it doesn't fall all over my face. I mean, that's the look. We're gonna leave it at this very simple. And as I had expected, obviously it's not pigment packed. It's nothing like a Natasha Denona or a Pat McGrath formula, which is completely fine. Just be aware if you do prefer those really pigmented, shimmery metallic shades. You're not gonna get that with this. This is the kind of formula that I feel like is very, very flattering for mature lids and also for people who just want a quick everyday, thoughtless look because the colors are going to blend seamlessly together. And it's gonna create a look that's gonna take you less than five minutes to do. And of course, you're also paying for the experience, of course. And the name, and my mom actually got me these earrings from Etsy, I believe. I'll see if I can link the shop down below. They're so cute, it's perfect for this video. But yeah, if you're looking for a great everyday eyeshadow, you like the kind of Chanel spiciness to it. This one's pretty. I'm not in love with it, though. I don't think for me personally and for my makeup preferences, it would be worth $65. So let's move on to the other shade. Again, reapplying some of that base. So we're gonna move on to the next one, which is the shade Intense. And this one is a little bit more earthy toned, really excited about these. Now what I've noticed about this particular launch from the eyeshadows, it's hard to tell in pan almost what the finish is going to be. Taking a look at my arm swatches, there really is only one kind of satin mat and this is going to be this deeper shade right here, which is completely fine, but you can see even in the pan. It does give you a little bit of va-voom. This shade seems to be a little bit more of a looser, sheer kind of shimmer shade. This shade right here is gonna carry a little bit more pigment and metallicness. This shade is a little bit more shimmery and then this shade is more like a satin shimmer hybrid. So this one has different finishes than the first palette and all of them are kind of a hybrid shade. It's almost hard to distinguish what exact kind of finish it has. I think you're overall gonna get a subtle shimmery kind of look with this. So let's find out. Gonna start off this shade right here and we're gonna use this as a crease color. Again, I'm not gonna do anything fancy with the look just because I'm not familiar with the formula. So I want to do the typical kind of skill that I would do just to see how they perform. I mean, I don't know if you saw that. Very, very pigmented. I lightly tapped in the pan, but effortlessly works its way out. Gonna carry just a little bit more right here. Okay, that was completely effortless. Wow. We're gonna go in with this deeper shade right here. The one that's kind of more of a satin matte has a very, very deep green to it. And again, effortlessly worked its way out. Can be quite pigmented, but it almost fades away as you blend it. So it built up really deep when I set it down and then when I blended it, it still kept some of that depth, but it's not as deep. But again, an effortless blend. A lot of times shades that do have that type of depth can be a little bit tough to work with and work out. I'm going in with the lighter crease shade that I just used. I guess we're going smokey today. I don't know.  As much as I want to use every shade, I want to put a deep shade all over the lid. I think we're gonna go this shade right here, which is like a chocolate shimmery brown, a little bit of golden in there. And this is going to create a really pretty effortless smokey eye. How gorgeous is that? And you can see a little bit of that gold shift in there. Kind of pack on a little bit more with our brush. Funny, I'm using a $65 Chanel palette with a $1 Elf brush. Okay, let's use this shade right here now. We're gonna brighten up that inner corner, just like that. And this one doesn't layer as well over that first shade. You can see it did add some nice brightness there. And lastly, before I kind of clean everything up, we're gonna take some of this shade. This is the one that's a little bit looser, similar to that of the shimmery shade in the Pinker palette, but it does have a little bit less glitters. Not quite as much. And this is a beautiful shade to use as a highlight. Honestly, I'm kind of impressed with this one. I'm going to finish the rest of my makeup, and then I will be back to do the lip, and then I'll give you my final thoughts on everything. All right, guys. So I just put on some eyeliner and false lashes really quickly. Our Delta may wispy, something really natural. Anyways, we're gonna move on to the Rouge Cocoa Flesh lipsticks. Now there are four shades that came out, and I only picked up one color. I picked up what looked like would be the most neutral. This is the shade Dawn. And this does have a very sheer, shimmery kind of finish. So I'm gonna start off with Pat McGrath Lavas lip liner in Supernatural. You can see I didn't fill in the lips, but I wanted the color to show for itself. So again, this is Dawn. You can see very, very sheer, very, very shiny. Almost kind of feels like a lip gloss. That's really, really pretty. Obviously this is not going to be mask-proof. So that actually might be a little bit of a turnoff just for the time being, but oh my gosh, it looks gorgeous. With a lip liner though, wow. Okay, I'm gonna pull out really quickly and then we are gonna talk about my final thoughts on each product. So let's start off with the eyeshadow palettes. Like I said, they are $65 each. And if you are a person who likes really defined, precise makeup, you're not going to like the Chanel formula. Now I'm not sure if this is reminiscent of the regular eyeshadow formula in their regular line, but speaking for these, these are gonna give you quick, everyday makeup looks that are super easy to do. Again, like I said, something like a cut crease or something really precise and detailed like that. This is not the formula to be successful with that. This is just to blend on a bunch of eyeshadows and for it to look really good and be really seamless. Kind of a foolproof application. Definitely a great formula for more mature eyelids. I personally was not in love with Tender. I just feel like to me, $65 this one is not worth it. But because I prefer more of a color story like this for everyday, the intense I actually really love. I love how easy it was to create a simple everyday smoky eye. And I'm sure you can get around using other shades to create not a smoky eye, but I feel like this makes a typically harder to create look very, very simple. So for me, while the colors aren't super unique, it creates a look that is harder to create just completely seamlessly, very, very foolproof. So for me, this palette is definitely worth it. I prefer the tones. The pink palette, I mean, it's pretty, it's soft, but I feel like I would prefer a Charlotte Tilbury pinky kind of shadow palette because you get a little bit more of the type of formula that I prefer. Like I'm not a big fan of the pink shimmery shade. It's kind of a little bit messy and I just feel like for $65 in the amount of product that you get, every shade should work seamlessly. So I'm not as in love with the pink one, but definitely am into the intense one. Now that being said, do I think you need to spend $65 on an eyeshadow palette like this? No, I don't think so. But I am mostly a high-end luxury makeup channel and if you watch my channel, you tend to enjoy packaging and the experience. I recommend, if you're gonna get this, definitely purchase from the Chanel website to get the nice Chanel box, to get the unboxing experience. You have this beautiful classic packaging and beautiful shade, so I really like this one. Let's move on finally to the lipstick. Now I forgot to mention this, but it is $40. I mean, $40 for a little lipstick, that is a lot. I like this, I think it's a very beautiful formula. I would say, you know, if you wear a mask every single day and you have to for work, I don't think this would be worth it, but I think it's a really pretty summer color, very nice to throw on. A little bit of lip liner adds a nice gloss or even a great kind of touch-up formula. So if you put on a liquid lipstick, but you need some hydration or you just need to bring your lips back to life, this is a very easy way to do that and I love this color. There are brighter colors like red shade, a coral shade and orange shade in this collection, but if you tend to like more nude lips like me, I really love this. So maybe not worth buying every single color, but I think this is a very nice formula and it's very, very trendy. All right, you guys, there we have it. I have explored some items from the Chanel Le Beige collection, very into it, very beautiful wearable collection. This is probably, I believe, one of their more popular collections every year.  They're just beautiful wearable colors that perform so easy. So that is all I have for today's review. I hope you guys enjoyed it. If you aren't subscribed to my channel already, I would love it if you would consider taking the time to do so and I will see you all in the next one. Bye, guys, have a good one.


NN. The Tiger. Financial News Network. News Update. Welcome, folks. We have the down investors trading up $3.55. NASDAQ's up $129. S&P's up $33. Gold. Gold contract up $24.10. Trading at $19.80 an ounce. We have Silver up $0.22 cents. $25.24 cents an ounce. Lightning crewed up $1.54. $75.69 cents a barrel. Notes and bonds. Ten-year note. Up one tick. $112.24 cents. The 30-year up $7 cents at $126.25 cents. And $Kingdala. $Kingdala just can't get out of its way. It's up 104 ticks. Tried to go on topside. Can't do it. Get a flat market out here. And $Kingdala, that is. $99.949 cents. The Euro is at $112 cents. The Yen is at $138 cents. The British pound is at $130 cents. The U.S. dollar. We're going to take a look at the spy and the bottom line is that you're moving away from this area, folks. This is a wide price for a deal here. You have 41 million shares traded. Yesterday you had a failure on price and volume. But today you're going to do about 60 million shares. So we'll see how many they can put in at the close. If they put in over 69 million shares, you're going to get an ABC up. We're going to look at the NDX 100. Yeah, it sounds wild. But that is what it is. You take a look at the NQs. Same setup. In fact, the NDX already has volume.  We're going to do it in 10 million shares. We're at 43 million already. You need 55 million for an ABC up. That would be 382. That's a big one. That's 19 points. So you got, that's almost 400. That's 399. So pretty intense. Gold. Gold contracts on his way higher too. Bottom line, gold. They're all higher.  Gold is on 253,000 contracts out here.  Let's see what you're taking out. Oh, this would be pretty cool. I think Gold, you got an ABC up here too. Yeah, we do. Yeah, you got an ABC up there too. That's 1968. Well, the conservative way to do it is go to you still got a 60 point A to B. We'll get you. There it is, man. Unreal. We're coming up. Well, that gets you 2001. Yeah, the first one's 2001. Stay right there, folks. Come right back.


First item of business today is members business debate on motion 4643 in the name of Ben MacPherson. On UK Government restrictions for 18 to 21-year-olds accessing financial support for housing. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put and I ask those who wish to press the request to speak buttons now. I call Ben MacPherson to open the debate in around seven minutes. I would like to thank the Presiding Officer for securing debate time on this important issue of UK Government restrictions for 18 to 21-year-olds accessing financial support for housing. Presiding Officer, how we as a country support our young people is fundamental to the prosperity of our society and the strength of our economy. How we nurture the contributions of younger generations will shape the values of our future, the character of our nation, the strength of our commerce and the prospects of our collective wellbeing. That is why we must seek to support and encourage all of our young people in their adolescence and on their journey into adulthood. The UK Government's decision to abolish access to financial support for housing for 18 to 21-year-olds from 1 April this year is a backward step. It is a detrimental measure that will negatively affect the future of the young people affected and the future of our country. While at present, the policy only applies to new universal credit claims from single job seekers in the five areas of Scotland where universal credit has been fully rolled out, in the years ahead, the policy will affect all new claimants in Scotland as the UK Government rolls out universal credit across our country by April 2018. Therefore, very soon, the policy will negatively affect 18 to 21-year-olds across Scotland in both urban and rural areas. The Tories envisage that young adults affected by the policy will be able to return to the parental home or enter employment, but that will not always be possible or beneficial. As Shelter Scotland has stated, this Tory policy will remove an important safety net for young adults. While I acknowledge that the UK legislation includes certain exemptions to the policy, the overall policy intent of this cut, in support of young people, remains both nonsensical and punitive, and the young people that it will affect will undoubtedly be impaired as a result. There is no guarantee that the exemptions in sections 4b and 4c of the regulations will be administered accurately or appropriately in practice. What will the costs of assessment be? Will all young people have the necessary wherewithal to seek exemptions and advocacy services? How will vulnerability be proved? As the homelessness charity Crisis has stated, vulnerability is a dynamic, not a fixed state. It is affected by many factors that will make someone's life more or less difficult over time. Any system of exemptions is going to find it extremely difficult to keep pace with changes in circumstances. Young people may have to move in and out of work or training. Their relationships with their parents can fluctuate and be prone to sporadic crisis or reconciliations. Their emotional state and mental health may be fragile. Tracking all of this over time will not only be difficult, but it will also be very expensive to administer. Adam Tomkins I am very grateful to Mr McPherson for giving way. Is this a speech that he is giving in favour of the proposition that the Scottish Government should exercise its powers under section 28 of the Scotland Act 2018 to create a new benefit to support unemployed 18 to 21-year-olds in pursuit of housing? Ben Macpherson I will be coming on to forward actions in due course. No doubt today that some Conservative MSPs will maintain that the effect of their party's policy will be negligible, but tell that to the several hundred young people who will be affected in Scotland this year and the estimated 1,000 young people each year after that. Tell it to the estimated 11,000 to be affected each year across the UK. All for a measly supposed cost saving to the treasury of 0.4 per cent of the total annual spend on housing benefit. What is more, given the history of welfare reform, I predict the numbers affected will rise. Even if the estimates are correct and the exemptions work perfectly, the whole ethos of this policy is wrong-headed. Not only does the policy stem from a misguided and cynical world view and false assertions about the motivations and circumstances of young people in our communities, but this Tory policy has real potential to contradict the stated aims of UK Government welfare reform, namely to encourage claimants off benefits and into work. Rather than false notions about subsidising young people to leave home for a life on benefits as the Tory 2015 manifesto mistakenly asserts, housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-old job seekers can in fact provide the platform necessary for individuals to move into employment, especially if they are transitioning out of homelessness, as Shelter Scotland has powerfully argued. In other words, this UK Government policy not only discriminates against young people, but it creates barriers to work and diminishes the ability of affected individuals to move forward, and this is therefore against the UK Government's own principles of welfare reform and universal credit. The policy creates difficulties for young people to move into the private rented sector, with reports of PRS landlords already avoiding younger tenants as a result of the policy. The policy also puts social housing tenants at risk of losing their tenancies. The catch-22 is that, in some cases, the policy will stop access to a tenancy at all. In order to make a claim for universal credit housing costs, an individual must have a tenancy agreement, but in order to access a tenancy, the individual must prove evidence that they will be able to access help with housing costs if they are not in work. The policy makes no sense. While the proposed UK Government initiative of a youth obligation may aid employment support, it will not make housing affordable for those affected. Not only is this UK Government policy unnecessary and discriminatory against young people, but Scotland does not want it. The SNP manifesto in 2016 committed to oppose these cuts. The SNP forms the Scottish Government, and the UK Government should honour the democratic wishes of the Scottish people and facilitate the abolition of the policy in Scotland. The decision of the UK Government to implement this policy by changing the eligibility criteria in universal credit, rather than the calculation, has meant that the Scottish Government cannot use its power under the Scotland Act 2016 to mitigate the changes in a straightforward way. The UK Secretary of State's refusal to enable a geographic exemption for Scotland is an act of preference rather than necessity. Let me be clear that the UK Government can exempt Scotland from this policy if it wants to in law. All it needs to do is write it down in statute. I encourage the Scottish Government to keep pursuing a geographical exemption with the UK Government, and Scottish Conservatives must face up to the fact that this would be a much more expedient process than introducing a new Scottish benefit to plaster over bad Tory UK Government policy. Presiding Officer, this policy is not really about reducing expenditure or reducing the number of claimants. Instead, this cut by the Tories is about pandering to false assertions about young people and their housing choices and lifestyles. As well as sensuously harming the individuals affected, those cuts will put more and more pressure on local services. Ruth Davidson said at the weekend that she wants to talk about Scotland's young people. Unfortunately, she is not here today, but in the spirit of good faith, I would like to pass a message on to her via her Conservative colleagues present. Those cuts to financial support for 18 to 21-year-olds will distress and derail the young people affected. They will diminish the prospects for young people to fulfil their potential and flourish. They will negatively impact on the society that young people in Scotland will grow up in. The policy depressingly panders to cynical and judgmental assertions about young people's motivations and assertions that politicians should be challenging, not legitimising. In conclusion, I call on the Tories and the UK Government to abandon this wrong-headed policy of restricting access to financial support for 18 to 21-year-olds. I urge the Scottish Government to keep standing up for Scotland's young people, to keep opposing those restrictions and to keep pursuing a sustainable removal of those restrictions and the cuts and hardship that they will cause. The housing system is already stacked against young people. That Tory policy does not help. Now move to the open debate. Speeches have around for a minute's please. Adam Tomkins will be followed by Mary Todd. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Before I start, let it just be recorded in the official report that there is not a single Labour MSP in the chamber to debate this matter, nor is there any Liberal Democrat MSP in this chamber. There are green MSPs, Conservative MSPs and SNP MSPs only. Coming to the substance of the issue that Ben Macpherson has brought to the chamber this afternoon, first of all, I think that it's important to understand the scope of this regulation. One of the things that Ben Macpherson failed to say in his impassioned speech a few minutes ago was that this is a policy that applies not to all 18 to 21-year-olds, but only to unemployed 18 to 21-year-olds. It only applies to unemployed 18 to 21-year-olds who are making new claims to universal credit. It only applies to single UC claimants. It doesn't apply to anybody who's married. So I think that it's important also to understand, before we go any further, just to understand just how narrow the scope of this regulation is. It also, of course, applies only, and Ben Macpherson did say this. It applies only where universal credit has been, where full service has been rolled out, which at the moment is only five areas in Scotland, although that will grow in time. It is also a policy in respect of which there is a large number of exemptions that have been, in the words of the Scottish Government, co-produced with a range of stakeholders who have been working with DWP to develop this policy. This policy will not apply to anybody responsible for a child, any parent, carer or guardian. It won't apply to anybody in temporary accommodation. It won't apply to anyone who was a care leaver before the age of 18. It won't apply to any victim of domestic violence and it won't apply to anyone unable to return home because of a risk to physical or mental health. These exemptions ensure that the most vulnerable will continue to have the housing support that they need, so the policy will only affect those who have no barriers to work and who are able to return safely to their parental home. That's its justification. The policy removes what was formerly a perverse incentive for young adults to leave the family home and pass the cost of doing so on to the taxpayer. The policy is about stopping young people slipping straight into a life on benefits, which is quite the opposite of the rationale that Ben Macpherson sought to portray underlying the policy. Those who are affected by the policy, Deputy Presiding Officer, will be helped moreover by a new youth obligation within the framework of universal credit, a form of intensive employment support backed by apprenticeships, traineeships and work placements—exactly the sort of employment support that I would have thought everybody in this chamber from any party would want to support. Ben Macpherson's motion talks about the UK Government's short timescale behind the introduction of this policy. That's an aspect of his motion that I just don't understand. David Cameron, the former Prime Minister, first raised this as a policy in 2012. It was in the Conservative Party manifesto, the successful Conservative Party manifesto in 2015, as Mr Macpherson said in his remarks. It was formally introduced in the summer budget of that year, two years ago. I know that Mr Macpherson supports a Government here that is moving as slowly as it is possible to move in terms of the progress of the devolution of welfare. Announcing a policy in 2012, making it formal in 2015 and introducing it with effect from April 2017, is not moving at a short timescale. I would be happy to give way if I have time. I can give you a little bit of time. Ben Macpherson. Very briefly, I am grateful to Mr Thomas for giving me away, would you acknowledge that the regulations were only laid a month before the implementation of the policy? Adam Tomkins. I would acknowledge that the regulations were signalled months and months in advance in the summer budget of 2015. A sensible Government would regard a period between the announcement of a policy in 2012, making that formal in 2015 and implementing it in 2017 as a sensible pace of progress. Finally, the power to create new benefits, and this will be my final point, Presiding Officer. The reason why the UK Government could not act under section 11.4, I think it is, which is the provision of the legislation that the Scottish Government wanted the UK Government to act under, is because the Secretary of State has legal advice that it is impossible for him to, legally inept, legally impossible for him to act under that power. So the only power under which he could act to introduce these regulations is a power that changes the eligibility. Now, I fully accept that that means that the top-up power cannot be used in this instance, but that is why, around the Smith commission table, we did not just agree a top-up power. We also agreed a power, which is in section 28 of the Scotland Act, to create new benefits in devolved areas. This is a devolved area. We are talking about housing. If the Scottish Government wanted to introduce a new benefit under section 28, then it has all of the powers that it needs to, and it seems to me that if the Scottish Government wanted to do that, it would need no further than Ben Macpherson's speech for the justification for it doing so. I may have to be a bit tighter on the following speeches. Marie Todd, to be followed by Andy Wightman. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to Ben Macpherson for bringing forward this important member's debate. Just yesterday, in this Parliament, we debated the impact of welfare reforms on disabled people, and a couple of weeks ago, we debated the callous rape clause policy. We have already heard some members in this chamber defend the frankly indefensible. Here we are again, discussing another ill-conceived and harmful Tory policy that we know will have a detrimental impact on the most vulnerable people in our society. Homeless charities, including Shelter, Crisis and Centre Point, have been very clear in voicing their concerns. Cutting housing benefits to 18 to 21-year-olds risk increasing the number of rough sleepers. Why would the Conservative Government in the UK introduce cuts that are known to have this effect when they also know that homelessness is on the rise for the sixth year running in England? Does not this undermine the Government's commitment to reducing homelessness? A spokesperson for the Department of Work and Pensions, and Mr Tomkins has repeated here, claimed that the move is intended to make sure that 18 to 21-year-olds do not slip straight into a life on benefits. The Tories talk about choosing a life on benefits, choosing to claim housing allowances, but this fundamentally misses the point that, for many people, there is no choice. The idea that removing entitlement to housing benefit will drive all young people to earn or learn to use David Cameron's own words is to misunderstand many of the people who rely on this part of the social security system. The policy fails to take into account the reality of many young people's lives. The option of being able to live with your patient parents is not a luxury that is open to everyone. I represent a part of the country where youngsters rarely live with their parents beyond school age. Many of us in the Highlands and Islands leave home for work or study at a very young age. I was only 17 when I left home myself, but my family was still able to support me. Those cuts will affect those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in desperately difficult situations.  It provides them with much-needed stability. Adam Tomkins As I said in my remarks a few moments ago, will the member not accept that there is an exemption for anybody who is at risk of mental or physical harm in the parental home? That policy will not apply to exactly the category of people that she is now talking about. Marie Todd Thank you, and I would ask the member, just like with the rape clause, can I ask you exactly how somebody would prove that? No? Okay. The policy does not even make sound economic sense. Recent research by Harriet Watt University found that once the cost of vital exemptions and costs to other public services have been taken into account, the policy will save a maximum of £3.3 million. It will take only 140 extra young people to become homeless before the policy costs more than it saves. If it is the welfare bill that they want to cut, the UK Government should be addressing the root cause of the problem and make building homes that people can afford more of a priority. As I am sure that you are aware, universal credit has been rolled out in Highland already, causing huge hardship. Among the other concerns that I hear from constituents who work in housing is that 18 to 21-year-olds, because they will seek ways to secure accommodation under the exemptions, the policy will increase pressure on charitable housing associations, increase pressure on local authorities, increase pressure on GPs, increase pressure on care providers, all of whom are already working under extreme due rest. I hear that it has always been difficult to get private landlords to take people out on, but the system will without doubt put paid to that. That is what constituents who work in housing are telling me. Private landlords simply will not take the risk. The Scottish Government has made it absolutely clear that it opposes those cuts. The Scottish welfare fund will mitigate that for now, but the bottom line is that it should not have to. I call Andy Wightman to be followed by Mary Evans. Thank you to Ben Fersen for bringing this debate. It is important at the outset to stress that the withdrawal of support for young people is part of a wider failure in housing policy, and that wider failure is to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing for all. That has led, for example, to the rapid growth in the private rented sector, not a sector of choice for young people but a sector of necessity. According to the UK Government's own figures, the housing benefit bill is set to reach £25 billion this year. To my mind, that is a price of failure in the housing market, and that is against a historic shift in public support provided to housing supply, a shift from housing supply to housing demand, a shift from investment in housing to spending to support demand, and a regressive move that has led to rising house prices, rising rents and growing inequality. As Marie Todd pointed out in Ben Fersen's motion, that policy could very easily end up costing Government more money than it is designed to save. Young people can be forgiven to think that housing policy has not only neglected them but is working actively against their interests, as Marie Black noted in her maiden speech in the House of Commons. In this budget, the chancellor also abolished any housing benefit for anyone below the age of 21. We are in the ridiculous situation where, because I am an MP, not only am I the youngest but I am also the only 20-year-old in the whole of the UK that the chancellor has prepared to help with housing. That is a rather sad past to come to. Housing, in short, in the private rented sector and in the owner-occupied sector is too expensive. House prices have soared over the past three decades, exacerbating growing inequality between a property owning class and a landless class. Many of the powers to tackle this, to reduce rents, to reduce house prices, lie with the Scottish Parliament. We have the power to design an effective system of housing taxation, but we have failed to do it. We have the power to capture land values for the public good but have not done so. We have the power to repeal planning legislation that rewards landowners for the grant of planning permission, but we have failed to do so. Whilst I welcome the Government's commitment to build 35,000 affordable homes, I disagree that those will be affordable by any definition that is recognised by young people. This is the background against which the withdrawal of benefits has taken place. The Scottish Government has now announced that it will provide affected 18 to 21-year-olds with funding from the Scottish welfare fund on an interim basis. That is welcome, but I would like to ask the minister if any additional resource will be made available to the fund to meet the extra demand, as opposed to being met from an existing already very overstretched budget, because the cost of mitigation is likely to be around £6.5 million over the next three years. Demand for the Scottish welfare fund rises considerably when universal credit is fully rolled out, as we have seen in Musselborough, with the Social Security Committee hearing evidence that pressure on East Lothian councils fund there is unsustainable. As universal credit full service rolls out and the housing cost restrictions come into play from more and more 18 to 21-year-olds, that will be at the same time as a range of other increasing demands for the fund. I hope that ministers have thought about how that will be handled. Although I have a great deal of sympathy for the position that the Scottish Government has been forced into it by the unwillingness of the UK Government to create a better mechanism for mitigating the cut, I would also like to stress that doing so through the Scottish welfare fund should only be temporary. It is meeting a statutory entitlement, albeit a de facto one at present, through what is effectively a discretionary fund, and that is not a good precedent to set. Fundamentally, in this Parliament, we need to focus on eliminating the necessity for providing housing support by solving the underlying structural problems in the housing market. Most of those are already devolved to this Parliament, and we should use them. I remind the chamber that I am the parliamentary liaison officer to the Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equalities. I normally start a debate by saying that it is a pleasure to take part in it, but I do not really take pleasure in taking part in the debate today, just like I did not take any pleasure in taking part in the debate last week on food banks or in discussing the impact that cuts to social security have had on those with a disability yesterday, but here we are again. I do not necessarily take pleasure in speaking in today's debate. I am glad at least to have the opportunity to do it and to highlight yet another Tory policy that will have a devastating impact on a number of young people in this country. To that end, I would very much like to thank Ben MacPherson for his motion and for bringing this debate forward. I just feel that no matter which way you look at this policy, it is poorly thought out and does not make sense. As we already heard, it has the potential to cost more money than it saves. While there are exemptions to the policy, they do not go far enough and, as Shelter highlighted in its briefing, the impacts could be catastrophic. The draft-led regulations, as we already heard, were only laid one month before the intended implementation date. It is something that organisations and local authorities did not give them enough time to prepare for the impact in spite of what Adam Tomkins would like to admit today. In Scotland, the Government has committed to mitigating against the policy for an interim period of time through the Scottish welfare fund. The UK Government has refused to delay its implementation, while discussions between the two Governments took place and, as Ben MacPherson highlighted, to give a geographical exemption to Scotland. The Scottish Government estimates that 768 people will be affected by the policy and they will not meet the exemptions and would have to apply to the Scottish welfare fund. In Aberdeenshire and Angus, where universal credit is expected to be rolled out from November this year to March 2018, it is estimated that, in Angus, 23 people will be affected in Aberdeenshire and 20 people. That is 43 people to many and 43 people that we cannot let fall through the net. The policy will also cost more lives than it saves if it results in an increase in homelessness. As we already heard from Marie Todd, which I think is a vitally important point to remember, only 140 young people need to become homeless for the costs of this to outweigh any potential savings identified. The latest cuts to housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds are simply part of a wider attack that the Tories have launched on young people across the UK. Though, thankfully, in Scotland, under this Government, there has been some protection against the worst of this, because let's look at the overall picture here and exactly what the Tories have done for young people since they came to power. They have denied young people aged 16 and 17 the right to vote as exists in Scotland, so while young people have had the chance to have their say in the council election two weeks ago, they are now in the bizarre position of five weeks later not being able to vote in a general election, the results of which will no doubt punish their generation for yet another generation to come. You could be a young person in the UK, be doing the same job as someone older than you, but not be entitled to the same pay because of your age. You are not entitled to the living wage. You have to pay tuition fees to attend university. As of autumn this year, you can be charged up to £9,250 to attend university in England, with a degree debt in England, the highest in the English-speaking world. Those who do graduate do so with an average debt of around £44,000. Those from the poorest backgrounds can expect to graduate with an excess of £50,000 worth of debt, because the Tories, while increasing tuition fees, also saw fit to scrap the maintenance allowance which 620,000 young people were dependent on. The might of debt taken on by students in England has more than doubled in the last 10 years, and this is a Tory policy that is burdening an entire generation and forcing them to begin their lives saddled with debt. The housing benefit policy is the latest in a long line of Tory policies that are ill-conceived and which will ultimately cause harm. This is nothing more than yet another assault on young people which we in Scotland are yet again forced to mitigate against. If you are a young person in the UK, this is a pretty bleak picture, and I would urge all young people to remember all of those points raised when they walk into that polling booth on June 8. The last of the open speakers is Graham Simpson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's strange, isn't it, that we have debates welfare in this Parliament, as though changes to the welfare system are some kind of bolts from the blue. Last minute, nasty Tory broadsides designed to catch out the needy. That's the narrative. I thought you'd like that one. That's the narrative, but it's entirely wrong. We need to have more considered discussions on these issues in this Parliament. So before I turn to the issue at hand raised by Ben MacPherson, who omits to say in his motion that this change only applies to job seekers, let's establish some facts. The removal of entitlement to the housing element of universal credit from young people aged 18 to 21, with some exceptions, from last month, was first trailed by David Cameron in 2012, and then announced by the then Chancellor George Osborne in his summer 2015 budget. We've known it was definitely going to happen for nearly two years. The stated rationale is to ensure young people in the benefits system face the same choices as young people who work and who may not be able to afford to leave home. David Cameron said in 2014, I want us to end the idea that aged 18, you leave school, go and leave home, claim unemployment benefit and claim housing benefit. We should not be offering that choice to young people. We should be saying to people you should be earning or learning. Laudable aims. Nobody benefits long term from a life on benefits. There will, of course, be exceptions as there should be. The regulations specify the categories of young people who will be exempt. They include those who may not be able to return home to live with their parents, certain claimants who've been in work for six months prior to making a claim, and young people who are parents. Those in temporary accommodation are also exempt. Nobody who's currently in receipt of any payment is going to lose out. This only relates to new entrants into the system. The aim of it is to ensure that young people don't slip straight from school and on to a life of benefits. If anyone thinks that's a positive destination, stick your hand up now. Nobody. Young adults affected by the policy will be expected to return to the parental home or enter employment. The UK Government envisages that the new youth obligation will help young people into work, as Adam Tomkins mentioned. About 1,000 people will be affected UK-wide in the first year and only a few hundred in Scotland. I called earlier for a considered discussion. That means all of us retreating from knee-jerk partisan positions that sort espoused by the Ben Macpherson's of this world. I want to see homelessness—Oh, Ben smiled, that's good. I want to see homelessness reduced, eradicated even. As the Scottish Conservatives' housing spokesman, it's an issue—No, I'm not. As the Scottish Conservatives' housing spokesman, it's an issue I feel passionately about. We, as a party, signed up to Shelter's call for a national homelessness strategy earlier this year. The SNP is the only major party not to have done so, so don't lecture us on homelessness. I'm involved in the local government and communities committees inquiry into homelessness, the causes of which are complex. There are no easy solutions. I was at a conference in Glasgow this week, organised by Crisis, which was formed 50 years ago by Conservative Ian McLeod. It behoves us all to retreat from the kind of hysterical language used in this motion and deal with this subject in a serious and considered way so that organisations such as Crisis don't exist in another 50 years. I now call Jane Freeman to respond to this debate. If you don't mind me saying, Minister, we do have a little bit of extra time that could be used, so I could give extra time for interventions. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I start by thanking Ben Macpherson for bringing this motion to debate and for the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Government. I also start with what will probably be the only point of agreement with Mr Tomkins in this debate, but I too record my disappointment that neither Labour nor Liberal Democrat colleagues have chosen to join us for what is an important discussion. That was it, Mr Tomkins. It's not going to get any better than that. I'm also happy to put on record that the Scottish Government shares many of the concerns that have been raised by members about the removal of support for housing costs for 18 to 21-year-olds. We made it clear in our manifesto, which then elected us to be the Government of Scotland, that we wish to retain housing benefit for that age group and those affected by the UK Government's policy. I'll come to that in a moment. I'm more than happy to assure Mr Macpherson that we will continue to pursue that manifesto commitment on which we were elected and, in particular, to pursue with the UK Government the Smith agreement and its requirement to honour that agreement, as we do. I want to start a bit more substantively by refuting absolutely that notion that we've heard from our colleagues here in the Conservative benches that a life on benefits is somehow a choice and a choice that young people consciously, deliberately, willingly make at the age of 18. All of the evidence points us in the other direction, and if any members in the Tory benches actually took the time and the trouble to talk to the young people affected, they would know that those young people, like young people, who are length and breadth of Scotland, have ability and talent, many challenges to face and what they want is to be able to live an independent life. In my world, that is something that a Government should assist them to do and not actively try to prevent them from doing it. What a contradictory policy we have here, a policy where the DWP would allow an individual support, won't allow them support to sustain their current tendency, but if they then become homeless and under our legislation are protected with temporary accommodation, they will get that support back. There is no sense in this and there is no sense in it in terms of either logic or in a moment, or the cost. I cannot understand what the point is. Mr Tomkins said, let us remember the narrow scope of this policy. Let us remember the long list of exemptions. I remember both. I am forced to the point of wondering what is the point of this policy. Is it still, just a second, based on the notion that the benefit system is not there for all of us in times of need? It is not something that we all collectively contribute to, which is our view. It is there for all of us, something that is part of a contract, a social contract, between Government and people, like the national health service, but rather it is something that people who are scroungers, who are work shy, who want to live off the state, and therefore we have to be suspicious of them, we have to curtail it, we have to make sure that they get as little as possible. Is that the ideology? I think so. Mr Tomkins, is it indeed Adam Tomkins? Does the minister think that the taxpayer should pay the rent of an unemployed 18 to 21-year-old? If she does, when will she use her powers under section 28 of the Scotland act to introduce such a benefit into Scots law? I do not accept for one second this binary notion that there are a bunch of taxpayers over there working hard, contributing and gaining little, but looking after shoring up in some charitable way, looking after this other lot of people over there who are scroungers and work shy. I absolutely do not buy into that notion at all. If Mr Tomkins had listened for one moment to the debate that we had yesterday on disability, he would understand that it is that very fundamental ideological difference between us, which produces the notion that people are stigmatised, that they are vulnerable, that they somehow are afraid to go and ask for what they are entitled to. I go back to my point—I am getting to your point—which is that social security is an investment that we collectively make in ourselves and in each other. Neither of us, Mr Tomkins, is neither you nor I know the day when we might need that financial support. Therefore, I do not accept what he has said, and I am getting to the point about when we will deal with this matter in Scotland. However, let me say this. There is no reason—do not come here and quote legal advice. There is no reason, no reason at all, why the UK Government could not have introduced the changes it seeks in a manner that would have allowed us to retain that benefit for those 18 to 21-year-olds, to Governments certainly coming at this matter from opposing sides, both with manifesto commitments. We were prepared to honour and respect their democratic right. Unfortunately, they have not been able to do that with us. We are forced into using an interim, non-person-centred, unnecessarily bureaucratic solution called the Scottish Welfare Fund. It is one that I can give Mr Whiteman an assurance that there will be additional funds there to support that. We are determined that, while we argue with the UK Government about their approach and the intransigence with which they have dealt with us, we will not see any young person in Scotland suffer while that argument takes hold. I can also assure members that, unlike the UK Government, we do not walk away when we do not get our own way. We stay and come up with alternatives, so we suggested other person-centred solutions only to be met by a Westminster version of what you have just done—contempt, ignorance and a failure to recognise this Parliament and this Government as having a democratic mandate to do the job that we are here to do. We will keep going in that argument and we have put in place that mitigation, but let me be clear that the current UK Government's position is not acceptable in terms of 18 to 21-year-olds. I am grateful to COSLA and to officials for the work that they have done to ensure that we have that interim solution. Draft guidance has been written and will be consulted on in the coming weeks, and, after the election in June, we will continue to engage with whichever UK Government is there in order to pursue that and the other areas, specifically around the benefit cap, where they continue to set their face against the democratic powers of this Parliament and this Government to pursue our agenda. We will use the powers that we have at our disposal and ensure that, as we use that Scottish welfare fund, we learn the lessons that we need to learn and consider how, if we cannot, through universal credit, enact our manifesto commitment, what alternatives there will be to that. That might include using our powers for new benefit, but I am certain that whatever we come up with as a long-term solution will be less than adequate to be able, quite simply, to use the flexibilities in universal credit and have the UK Government accept the better way—the more person-centred way—of allowing the Scottish Government to meet our manifesto commitment and retain that policy for 18 to 21-year-olds, rather than continue to penalise and stigmatise young people in our country for whom we should be giving the very best possible start.


Strength of the Nation, now heard on 1,000 radio stations. Proudly we hail! Starring Dennis O'Keefe in the letter, United States Army and United States Air Force presentation. And now here is your host, the well-known Hollywood showman, C.P. McGregor. Thank you, thank you. Greetings from Hollywood, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome once again to Proudly we hail. This week the nation commemorates Army Week. And as part of Army Week, we present a story dedicated to one of the truly great divisions of the Army, the famous Third Infantry Division. Our story is called the letter, and starring in the role of Sergeant Warshak, we're fortunate indeed to have that fine young actor of motion pictures, Dennis O'Keefe. Act one in a moment, but first a brief message from Wendell Niles. Veterans of the Third Division, attention. I have special news for you men who served in this famous Army outfit. You can now qualify for direct enlistment in a unit of the Third Division. The Seventh Regimental Combat Team is being brought to full strength for service with the Infantry School at Fort Benning. And you Third Division veterans have priority on this assignment. Listen later in the program for details. Now once again, our producer. And now act one of the letters starring Dennis O'Keefe as Sergeant Warshak. Maybe you don't remember the exact date. November the 8th, 1942. But if you were there, you'll never forget what happened in the cold gray dawn of that morning. Operation Torch was underway. For hours, naval guns had been pouring shells into the hostile shore defenses. And now the assault waves were headed for the beach at Badala, French Morocco. Yes, the torch was lit. The dye was cast. The Allied invasion of Africa begun. In the bleak darkness of the morning, one of the small landing crafts moving toward shore as part of an assault wave huddled a group of Third Division soldiers. Our story concerns two of these men, Sergeant Warshak and PFC Fred Benson. Hey, Sarge. Who's that? Benson. Ah, let me see who it was in the dark. What do you want, Benson? What time is it? What do you care? You're not going anywhere. Yeah, sure we are, Sarge. We're going to the movies and see Lana Turner.   Won't be so wise in a little while. No, the reason I asked, I was just thinking... Sarge. Yeah? Are you married? No, no, I'm not married. Oh, well, I am. Almost a year now. Tell me more. That's the reason I asked you what time it was. I was wondering what my wife would be doing now. Right now. I'll be glad when this rotten war's over. It'll be a long time yet, soldier, a long time. But suppose the Germans gave up tomorrow. Suppose we take Africa. And suppose the Germans decided... Can it, can it, chum. Nobody's giving up tomorrow, the day after tomorrow. There's a lot of hard fighting ahead, and you and I are the ones that are going to do it, too. Keep your heads down, men. Short guns are opening up. Sarge, you know what my wife said to me when I left? No, Benson. I don't know what your wife said to you when you left. She didn't cry or make a fuss or anything. She just put her arms around me and said, hurry back. And I suppose you said, sure. Sure, I'm just going off on a little tour. Don't wait up for me. I might be a couple of days late. Ah, look, fella. We all miss our wives at home. Stop thinking about it. Concentrate on what's going to happen when we hit that beach. Go over the plan. Yeah. Go over the plan. Okay, man, get ready. Remember, there's a hundred yards of beach between you and the trees. I'll have machine guns covering it. Now, don't kid yourself about those rocks on the edge of the beach. When we hit, fan out. Don't lose time making for the trees. Once in the trees, we'll regroup and head to the assembly point. Okay? Ready now? This is it. Did they make it, Corporal? I think so, Sarge. You know, we're lucky. Machine gun fire was murder. It's going to take time to clean them out, too. Yeah. Say. What? I was just counting noses. Where's Benson? Benson? Anybody seen Benson? Yeah, he was behind me, Sarge. I didn't see him after we got to the beach, though. He must have been hit. Oh, I'll go back and look for him. Corporal, you know where the assembly point is. Right.  Got you, Sarge. On your feet, man. Let's go. I'll be with you as soon as I find Benson. If I find you. Keep your nose buried in the sand, Sarge. Don't worry. The beach. More rock than sand. Places could that guy be. It's like the poor devil would be the first one to get it. Hey, Sarge. Sarge. Benson, you okay, fella? Yeah, I think so. You hit? Where'd they get you? No, I'm okay.  I... Come on. Come on, Speller. What are you crouching here for? Why didn't you head for the trees like I told you? I couldn't, Sarge. I... You couldn't. Why? I... I froze. You what? I couldn't move. I tried to make myself move, but... I couldn't. I didn't care what happened to me here. But I just couldn't move out onto that beach. It was a fire in the machine gun. Listen, listen. You're scared, and I'm scared. And you can bet you're on Lula's old blue bonnet. We're all scared. We still got a job here. By heaven, we're gonna do it, and that includes you, Benson. Yeah. All right, Sarge. All right. I'm not a coward, Sarge. I know you're not, Benson. If you were a coward, your wife wouldn't love you the way she does. Yeah. Sure. But it was just that I couldn't move. Not a muscle. I just froze, Sarge. Sure. Sure, I know. We all feel that way, Benson. But we gotta keep going. The faster we move, the sooner it'll all be over. Maybe it'll be sooner than you expect. We don't like it, but when they start pouring that hot lead our way, we gotta keep going whether we're afraid or not. It's not just for yourself. It's for the other guys. It's for the people back home. Now, how about it, Benson? Do you get what I mean? Sure, Sarge. I didn't mean to let you down. But it won't happen again. I'm okay now. You can count on me. Forget it. Right now, we have to catch up with the platoon. Follow me a few feet back. Keep your head down.  The Third Division went on to take Fadala and with the Allied Army's Casablanca. After months of bitter fighting, the Nazis were driven out of Africa. More training for the Third Division. Then, one afternoon, the division stood in formation following a review. Sergeant Warsaw's platoon was at usual place with the company and PFC Benson was sounding off. Let's get this thing over with. Me for the sack after this. Quiet, dark places you're supposed to be in attention. Men! The commanding general! Men! The momentous hour we've all anticipated at hand. For weeks we've been preparing for this.  Each one adding to the success of our mission. That goes for you too, Benson. We do not know the meaning of the word failure. We know only that we'll be successful. I'm just proud of the accomplishments of you men in the campaign so far. He didn't mean you, Benson. Lay off the guy, Russo. I'll see any medals on you. Sergeant of Sicily. You're going to meet the boss. Carve your name in his face. The mighty Allied armada discharges cargo of fighting men and machines on the shores of Sicily. Inward they fought, pressing forward to their objectives. Walking along a dusty road at the head of his men is Sergeant Warsaw and one of his corpus. All right, guys, take five. I'll go too far. Where are we heading, Sergeant? Palermo. Palermo? Jumping catfish. That's a long way off. Yeah, about 100 miles. How long we got to get there? A week? A week? I wish. Give me a cigarette, will you? According to Lieutenant, we do there in five days. Five days? Holy mackerel. 20 miles a day. That's a lot of walking. That's no worse than the Louisiana maneuvers. Here's your butt. Thanks. Suppose we're running into trouble? Probably will. You gonna match? Don't you carry nothing, Sarge. I expect we'll run into Joey in the next town, a mile or two up the road. Thanks. Right now, we gotta keep moving. Yeah, you can say that again. 20 miles a day. Oh, my aching back. Hey, uh, Sarge, what about Benson? What about him? What do you keep baby in the guide for? Why don't you get rid of him? I'm not babying him. Benson's all right. I don't have time to get used to all this. He's one of them. Straighten out, all right. Yeah, that guy's no good. He's yellow. Hope to hand I never have to depend on him to save my neck. Ah, you got him wrong. He'll come around. Hey, where is he now? I don't see him back there. Ah, I don't either. All right, man. Let's get moving. I'll drop back and see what happens to Benson there. Carry on, corporal. You seen Benson Williams? Not me, Sarge. You guys know where Benson is? Yeah, yeah, he fell out about a half mile back. Well, now, what the devil for? What'd he say? Darn to find out. We were passing one of those empty farmhouses, and he took a powder into the place. Maybe he decided to write a letter to his wife. Stow it, egghead. Maybe he's sick. Yeah, he's sick. Home sick. Benson. What are you doing here? Sit down, Sarge. I was... I can see. Letter writing. Now get out of here double time and join your outfit. Come back to me. This is your last chance, Benson.  Sergeant, if you only...  Don't argue with me, Benson. I mean it. This is your last chance. Now go on, scram. Get going. Okay, Sarge. Okay. We pause briefly for my story, the letter starring Dennis O'Keefe, the Sergeant Warshark, to bring you an important message from your government. All you veterans of the Army's famous third division, how'd you like to be with your old outfit on a special assignment? Well, listen then. The seventh regimental combat team of the third division is being recruited to full strength. And here's why. Cracked troops are needed at the infantry school at Fort Benning, Georgia. You former members of the third because of your record and experience are given first chance. If you qualify and enlist for three years, you may be assigned directly to the seventh regimental combat team. You'll be stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia. Some of you who's specially skilled will be able to enlist at the non-commissioned ranks. And I don't have to tell you veterans how much that high army pay means these days. Ex-Service men of other outfits are eligible for this opportunity, too. So, look into this, veterans. Get the details right away at your local U.S. Army recruiting station. And now, act two of the letter starring Dennis O'Keefe, the Sergeant Warshark. After some spirited fighting, the Allied forces took Sicily. Then the third division pushed into southern Italy. Bitter combat and costly casualties accompanied the landing at Salerno. But the Allied forces fought their way to the Volchunno River. Here the armies halted for preparation for a large-scale crossing. Third division Sergeant's Warshark and his men have taken off the position and are digging in. Every night, vigorous patrolling missions go out and the rest of the men crouch in their dugouts. Hey, ugly. Who are you calling ugly?  I'll find out. When's this war going to be over? Oh, sometime next week. Haven't you heard? Why next week? Because I got a date at the Palladium next month and I couldn't possibly break it. That's why. Hey, Benson, maybe you know. Know what? We're very interested in your opinion as to just when the shooting will stop. Should I know? I'm not running. That's a good thing for the rest of us. In your lover, boys, ladies' sugar reports from your sweeties. He got a letter. He gets lots of letters. Hey, hey, listen to this. Boy, I don't know what I got that the women go for. You remember my girlfriend? Well, I know this is silly of me, but... Which one, Casanova? You know, the one in Cucamonga. Oh, that one. Yeah, listen to this. I can't tell you what your letters have meant to me. Your letters have been the turning point in my life and I just want you to know how happy they have made me. Tomorrow I... Well, go on. What else does she say? Tomorrow I... am going to marry the postman. Oh, Casanova! Okay, okay, your luck's breaking up. Watch those lights. Might as well get the purple hearts. Squad's going out in patrol again tonight. Leave all identification here and get some mud on your faces. Luck's complexion can be spotted a mile off. Benson, you and William remain back here and cover this position. Okay, sir. Okay, let's go. If we have any guests while I'm gone, tell them to wait in my private office. Patrol. Patrol, they never end. What are you muttering about, Benson? Nothing.  Okay, William. You keep your eyes open. Yeah, I'll do that. What's that? A letter from home. It's funny. I can almost hear her voice as she wrote this. How brave you are to face what you must each day and how proud I am of you. Darling, I wrote you about the serious operation the doctor said would have to be performed. It was performed last week. I wanted your help so badly. I thought I would surely hear from you, but... then I know how the male is. Darling, I got so terribly frightened when I thought of going to the hospital and the operation, but then I thought of you and I really believe I lived through those moments with your strength. I went through the operation, dearest, knowing that the danger I faced was really very small compared to the things that must face your brave heart every day. Till I see you again, all my love, your devoted wife, Myrna. Hey, Benson, you're still reading that letter? Yeah. Everything all right at home? Everything's all right at home. Say, come to think of it, I wonder where that patrol is. Haven't they been out there a pretty long time? Hear anything, Warshak? Yeah, behind that mound up ahead. It sounded like jelly. We better pull back. We're too far forward. No. No, I want to know what's up there. You wait here with the man. I'm going to crawl up for a look, see. Stand fast. Yeah, okay. I can't move. I got me in the leg.   Get out of here. There's zero in on you. Here, beat it. Jerry, I'm wounded. I'm wounded, see? He wound that. How about getting me to an aidman? What organization? What outfit you from? I go flag kite. Refill. How many men you have? Sergeant Bill Warshak, serial number three, two, one, three, five, three, six, five. That's all, brother. Americana, sir. Shvine.  We'll fix your wagon yet. Belgate. Two-shoot. Americana. Benson, discerning to the enemy. Well, that does it. Here's my rifle. It's not loaded. Titsa, by the other soldier. Yeah, over there. Get away from me. Get away from me, Benson. I don't even want to be near you. Sergeant, I'm not discerning. No. Well, what the devil do you call this? Listen, I followed the patrol out. What for? I got a letter from... I'll never mind that. I heard you ran into this machine gun. The rest of the gang passed by me going back. I figured I could do something for you here. You sure picked the hard way. What can you do now? We're prisoners. Me? I got a bad leg. Yeah, but I'm all right. There's three of them in a machine gun. Listen, careful. Never would you say that you're listening. I know. You see that... that Buck Rogers in his hand? What is that Buck Rogers? Oh, that's... that's my uncle. Uncle? Yeah, yeah, that uncle. What are you trying to do?  We'll have a photo finish. Photo? You have a photograph? Yeah. Yeah. A secret photo. Come here. I'll show you. Come on over here. Let me see. What kind photo you... Enough! Hey, uh, what are we going to do about Sergeant Warshark, Corporal? Not a devil of a lot we can do now, Rousseau. You figure he's all right. He was alive when we pulled out. I don't know. He was wounded pretty bad. He was lucky if they don't finish him off. I should hope not. He was a good guy. Too bad it wasn't Benson instead of him. How long has Benson been gone? Well, William said he must have taken off soon after we started out on the patrol. He left for a little while. When he came back, Benson was gone. Looks like for good. Yeah. I'd hate to be in his shoes when they find him. That's desertion, isn't it, Corporal?  Well, he asked for it. He sure did, moody guy. Yeah? Somebody out there. Get your rifle ready. Who's there? Speak up or I'll let you have it. It's me, Benson. Don't shoot. I found Warshark. Benson, where is he? I left him a few yards back. I couldn't carry him any further. Rousseau, go out and bring Warshark in. Okay. What were you doing out there? I followed the squad out. The Jerry's had Warshark prisoner. We pulled a fast one on him with their machine gun. Killed him all. Is he hurt, man? He's lost a lot of blood, but he's going to be all right. It's his leg. Benson, you sure had me fooled. Yeah, I know what you're thinking. Hey, hey, you're hurt. Oh, I caught some lead from Jerry's rifle back there. Have they brought the sergeant in yet? Yeah, they're out getting them now. Look, man, we got to get you two to an aid station. Pronto. Hey, Sarge. Where are we? Hi. We're in a field hospital. Why'd you think we were in the Waldorf Astoria? Hey, how you doing, fella? Okay. Doc says he's afraid I'm going to live. How about you? I'm too mean to die. Yeah, I know. Hey, you gold bricks, I got news for you. How you doing, Sarge? I said, how you doing, Sarge? You must have stood too near to an anti-tank gun. The serge is in the next bed. Oh, you I'm talking to. Your name's Benson, ain't it? Oh, sure, but... Yeah, then you're the one. Lieutenant sent me to tell you. You've been promoted to sergeant. Me? A sergeant? That's right. Well, how do you like that? I'd like it all right. Did you hear that, Sarge? Sure, sure. But then you want to know something? I know what's going to happen to you right from the very beginning. Hey, uh, you get a cigarette, kid? Sure. And warshark? Yeah.  Um, are you going to... Uh, here's your matches, warshark. Uh, thanks. Uh, thanks, Benson, for, uh... for the matches. Hey, Corporal. Yeah, was there something? Yeah, how about handing me that pencil and paper there, will you? Yeah. I gotta write a letter to my wife. The curtain falls in the final act of the letter. Our star, Dennis O'Keefe, returns for a curtain call right after this timely message from Wendell Niles. A mighty fine record was chalked up by the Third Division in the World War II. And here is another important peacetime assignment for that distinguished U.S. Army division. Units of the Third Division are being recruited to full strength for duty at Fort Benning, Georgia. And here is where you veterans of the Third come in. You have priority on jobs with that unit. Yes, if you qualify and enlist for three years, you'll be assigned directly to the Seventh Infantry Regimental Combat Team. You'll have an interesting peacetime job with the infantry school. If your service is satisfactory, you'll remain with that unit for your entire enlistment. Yes, sir, that Third Division blue and white shoulder patch is a mark of distinction. And you former members of other Army units are eligible, too, if you apply while there are still openings. So veterans, take advantage of this. Get all of the facts at your nearest U.S. Army recruiting station now. Here again is our star, Dennis O'Keefe, and our producer. Returning now for a curtain call is our proudly-we-hailed star, Dennis O'Keefe, who will soon enlarge his imposing list of motion picture credits when he picks up a megaphone to become an actor-director. Dennis, we thank you for a very sincere portrayal of Sergeant Warsaw and our program dedicated to the Third Infantry Division. Well, that's very kind of you, C.P. It was a privilege to appear. That war record, that is a third. Yes, Dennis, indeed. Ever since 1798, when the Seventh Regiment was formed, and what a record in this war. Four amphibious landings, eight campaign stars, 33 congressional Medal of Honor winners, not to mention an itinerary that included Casablanca, Messino, Anzio, the Vosge Mountains, Strasburg, and Munich. Well, C.P., I know that every American remembers with real pride the magnificent record of all our great fighting divisions, among which the Third Infantry Division takes an honored place. But now, before I get away, C.P., what's your play bill going to read for next time? Next week, we're proud to present a truly outstanding dramatic event here on Proudly We Hail, when we bring you the story of great emotional impact, pilgrimage to Nazareth. It's a story of inspiration, a tender love story, one with particular appeal for the women of our audience. And our star will be none other than that romantic favorite of two continents, Jean-Pierre Omont. Oh, well, Viva la France. Sounds like you have a real show there, C.P. I'll be listening, and for now, goodbye. Goodbye, Dennis O'Keefe. Goodbye. Thanks again for our sincere performance. Be sure to join us next week, ladies and gentlemen, for a dramatic highlight on Proudly We Hail, when we present that popular star, Jean-Pierre Omont. Until next week, this is C.P. McGregor saying thanks for listening, and cheerio from Hollywood. This is a Hollywood coordinate, an arrival to reigns for the appearance of all stars on the program. The story was by W. James Bastian, with the orchestra under the direction of Eddie Scravanis. Proudly We Hail is transcribed in Hollywood for release at this time. Don't forget next week, Proudly We Hail stars Jean-Pierre Omont. Wendell Niles speaking.