The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 7793, in the name of Finlay Carson, on welcoming the contribution of rural estates in Scotland's wellbeing economy. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I invite members to participate to press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible, and I invite Finlay Carson to open the debate around seven minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It gives me great pleasure to bring this member's debate to the chamber this afternoon, and I thank those members who supported the motion. Like me, I know that they believe that it is of vital importance that the contribution that Scotland's rural estates play in our wellbeing economy is recognised and indeed applauded. Right from the start, I would like to thank Simon Ritchie for his briefings, and given this is his last week with Scottish Land and Estates, I wish him well and his new role with the Woodland Trust. I was very fond of the monarch of the Glen television drama, where the layered wand is around in his magnificent estate, sporting obligatory tweed plus fours, stopping occasionally to sip a little bit of malt whiskey from their hip flask as they take in the fine scenery. Perhaps good for viewers, but today it couldn't be anything further from the truth in most cases. Back to reality, in February of this year, Scottish Land and Estates published what can only be described as a landmark report highlighting the social, economic and environmental contributions made by rural estates in communities up and down the length and breadth of Scotland, including in my constituency of Galloway and Western Fries. A groundbreaking piece of research conducted in partnership with the bigger economics limited, Scottish Land and Estates produced a unique report outlining the contribution of estates far beyond traditional financial economic outputs. The report gives an innovative picture of how rural estates measure their outputs against Scotland's national performance frameworks and their national outcomes, rather than just through traditional economic metrics. In effect, it quantifies how rural estates drive local economic development through agriculture, forestry, tourism, sporting, recreation and renewable energy generation. I will. Kate Forbes. I wonder if the member would add to that list the fact that so often rural estates are supporting local educational facilities, local schools which employ teachers, local grocery stores which employ people and so on and so forth. Billy Carson. Absolutely. Thank you very much for Kate Forbes for that intervention, a very well-made intervention and I absolutely agree. We see some of the educational programmes that these estates have rolled out. In effect, the new report is the first sector to understand and to undertake such research and certainly the first time that the wider contribution of land-based businesses has been assessed in this way. The aim of the report was to establish a baseline of the rural estates sector's contribution to Scotland's national outcomes. As we know, the Scottish Government has set 11 outcomes to help measure progress towards a wellbeing economy. The Scottish Government has made it clear that its priority is to establish a wellbeing economy, a wellbeing economy defined as a society that is thriving across economic, social and environmental dimensions, an economy that delivers prosperity for all Scotland's people and places. The research by leading economic consultants, Biggar, revealed that rural estates contribute to at least seven of the 11 national outcomes. They provide homes for 13,000 families and land for 14,000 enterprises, in addition to attracting 5.4 million Scottish residents annually to enjoy the natural environment. In regard to the environment, rural estates account for 58 per cent of Scotland's renewable energy-generating capacity. The contribution that rural estates make to Scotland's natural capital asset base arises from the estates' agriculture, forestry and renewable energy operations, and the contribution they make to Scotland's carbon sequestration potential and nature-based tourism economy. The total value of the assets underpinning this contribution was estimated to be a staggering £35.1 billion. Fergus Ewing. I add to the list of substantial major excellent contributions field sports, which is an invaluable contribution to the rural economy, that supports a huge number of employees and provides a great entertainment to people who travel to Scotland for the best field sports opportunities that the world has to offer. Finlay Carson. Absolutely. I'm feeling a bit inadequate of all these additional, fantastic value-adds that estates have. We're absolutely appreciating the value of sporting activities in our estates as we take through the wildlife bill right now. With four out of five estates engaged in conservation through sustainable agriculture and land management, they also get involved in habitat restoration and wildlife conversation. They're quite staggering statistics, my goodness. I'm lining up the words that I can... Threat myself over tonight. All that said, and crucially, they generate an estimated £2.4 billion a year for the Scottish economy, supporting around 57,300 jobs, around one in 10 rural jobs, providing employment in areas where opportunities can be scarce, and they provide high-quality jobs, with estates, on average, paying 95 per cent of their staff, at least a living wage, and 86 per cent of the positions are contractually secure. They've also adopted a bi-local policy that makes rural economies more resilient, improving the wellbeing of those who rely on them. On average, estates purchase nearly three quarters of supplies from their local area. In turn, they support a healthy stream of business startups, which is a hugely important component of a thriving economy, especially when it involves young enterprises. There is clear evidence from the research that estates our agents for social, economic and environmental development, providing the kind of private investment that will allow the Scottish Government to deliver on its priorities. In the words I've shown a glen of bigger economics, the findings show that the contribution goes well beyond economic output in supporting jobs. Scotland's estates are doing much more to drive the creation of a wellbeing economy. Scottish land and estates insist rightly so. It is critical that those involved in Scotland's land reform debate should recognise the value of estates to modern-day Scotland, rather than become admired in historic arguments. I agree with the former SLE chairman, Mark Tennant, and I argue that the role of estates in supporting green jobs, local businesses, the economy in supporting mental and physical wellbeing, as well as stewarding Scotland's natural capital should be recognised more widely. Mark said, and I quote, many of the estates involved in research are able to achieve what they do, such as peatland restoration, clean energy or an innovative food production because they operate at a large scale. Scale is important for delivery of ambitious Scottish Government targets and priorities, regardless of who owns the land. We want to see any land reform debate based on realities of modern-day ownership and management. Rural estates are vibrant and progressive in their approach and see themselves as key to Scotland's sustainable future. I briefly highlight the excellent work that has been carried out at Barwylinte estate in Castle Douglas, a diverse estate offering sustainable food production, tourism stays and experiences. Apart from producing garden vegetables and local meat and wood fuel for the community, it has successfully moved into agritourism by offering off-grid yoga and wellbeing retreats, weddings and lifestyle courses. It has created affordable housing with consistent investment to improve the quality of homes, something that we only debated last week. Many other rural estates are following suit, playing an important role in building resilient rural communities. Finally, my concerns. When it comes to the significant positive impact of rural estates, whether it's climate change plan, the natural environment plan, crofting legislation, the new agricultural and rural communities bill, the land reform bill or indeed the hunting with dogs or current wildlife management and mureburn bill, we must not by being naive, ill-informed or allow historic and outdated prejudice to lead to bad legislation, which absolutely would curtail the rural estates ability to build on their substantial contribution to building Scotland's wellbeing economy. They deserve our recognition and I'm thankful for this opportunity to applaud them for all they do for our rural communities. Thank you Mr Carson. We now move to the open debate with a gentle reminder to those who haven't pressed their buttons to do so as soon as possible if they intend to speak. I call First Fergus Ewing to be followed by Brian Whittle around four minutes, Mr Ewing. Mae, I congratulate Finlay for bringing forward this debate. I'd like just to start to say this is the first opportunity I've had to pay tribute to the late Philippa Grant who sadly passed away in a tragic road incident on A9 over a year ago. Philippa was much loved in her own community. She achieved huge things in the Highlands. She exuded good cheer and she lived a very full life and she attended every meeting of the committee session of the National Parks legislation 24 years ago and that's when I got to know her.  I also wanted to say, Presiding Officer, that I had the great privilege of knowing a bit the late Donald Cameron, clan chief of Loch Heel and father of our Donald Cameron here who passed away more recently and Donald Sr was the Lord Lieutenant of Inverness. He overcame huge illness to achieve great things in the city of London and in his community in Loch Heel where again he was loved and respected for his huge commitment to that community and his father and grandfather were Lord Lieutenant before him so they were keeping the county of Inverness here in the family as it were. But Donald will be hugely missed and I'm sure Donald Jr is with us in spirit here this evening if not in person. I'd hoped for a rather longer than four minutes, Presiding Officer, so I can be a secure patience. To sum up what I wanted to say is that there's a big danger that the Scottish Government misses a series of opportunities. I don't say that in any negative sense but my experience of working with the states is that they make enormous contributions to my part of Scotland. There are different ones, of course, some more so than others. Most of them are actually businesses first, really. It doesn't matter so much whose name is on the land certificate with the title deeds. What matters is to what use the land is put and in that respect it seems to me that the arguments of the past, the quarrels of history centuries ago should always be remembered and celebrated or drowned in sorrows or whatever your view is. But they shouldn't govern our approach now which should be to get the best for Scotland from the land of the states. I think there's two, Minister, if I may just briefly. Two opportunities, one in housing and one in energy. In housing I've made this speech twice previously, at least in this chamber. But I do think that working in partnership with the states, which already happens to some extent, could happen a lot more, is an unrealised potential on a massive scale for estates to contribute towards the housing shortage in rural Scotland. If planning permission can be relaxed, provided there is some element of support whether grant or loan funds, I would suggest that the Scottish National Investment Bank could help here. I would also suggest that the minister should dust off two plans that the Labour Liberal regime brought forward in the early days of devolution, the agricultural business development programme and the agricultural business improvement scheme, both of which stimulated rural investment with a bit of grant finance and the enterprise companies ran those. I think that housing is a big opportunity and I think that permitted development would really open up the overly restrictive approach that planning has in rural Scotland which is treated in sort of aspic compared with urban in a way that reflects outmodied attitudes. The second opportunity is energy. I think that there are enormous opportunities to build on what we were able to achieve during my tenure as energy minister with encouraging not just community benefit at 5K per megawatt but community ownership if a developer has 20 turbines. Add another two. Get the SNIB to pay 10 per cent of the capital costs. They are not getting it for free. They are paying for it. The capital costs 10 per cent from SNIB and 90 per cent are levered from commercial lenders. That happened when I was minister albeit not from the major banks who fell short and I'm afraid but triadossed the co-op bank Close Brothers. This went well until rocks were scrapped but I think could make a comeback now. The developers are nothing to lose. They have a lot to gain because communities are far more likely to support wind farm developments in ownership than object as well as creating a financial legacy for our children and our children's children. Minister, I don't know if I've got more time. I certainly feel it. Not really. Bring your remarks to conclusions. I won't test your patience, sir. Thank you very much indeed to Mr Carson. I think it's excellent. We've had this opportunity thanks to him this evening. We do very much hope that we will grab golden opportunities to work better, deeper and more frequently with landowners of all sorts in Scotland, farmers and estates. There's a golden opportunity here and sadly the window of opportunity can rapidly slam shut in your fingers if you don't take it when it's available. Thank you Mr Ewing to find eulogies which I wholeheartedly welcome and enhance their chances of increased flexibility in terms of speaking time but there are limits. I now call Brian Whittle to be followed by Colin Smyth around four minutes, Mr Whittle. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'll try not to test those limits too much. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and congratulate my colleague in front of the cast for bringing this really important topic to the chamber. Deputy Presiding Officer, Scotland has a significant rural population that I'm sure we all want to support and help to thrive. After all, our rural economy is Scotland's kitchen and I've spoken in many occasions about the world-class produce that they supply. So what does a wellbeing economy mean for our rural communities, Deputy Presiding Officer? Well, our rural communities need what everybody else needs. A safe place to live, work and play, good access to schools and health services like GPs and dentists and hospitals. You need to be able to travel especially with public transport and good road and rail networks for that transport to travel on. You need to link to good jobs and careers that will keep them in those rural communities. However, Deputy Presiding Officer, it seems to me that every turn the Scottish Government undermining our rural communities. They undervalue the huge positive impact on our economy, let alone our wellbeing economy that our rural estates bring. As Finlay Carson said, one in ten rural jobs are in these estates. 57,000 jobs adding £2.4 billion to our GVA. What's even more impressive is that the average length of service from staff sits at 15 years. By the Government want to attack these estates and break them up with their land reform bill that is in the offing. We also have a constant attack on our food producers from the Green Brigade blaming farmers for global warming. When our food producers are delivering real change in emissions off their own efforts with no help and much griping from the SNP Green Alliance, keep talking a rural economy down and you'll wake up one day and it will be gone. Then where will our food security come from we'll have to import produce that has not been subject to the same scrutiny that our food producers adhere to. How very green. We heard last week that the cull for Cow and Bullslaughter are up 11%, which raises concerns for critical mass and the viability of our livestock economy. Scotland's red meat sector supports of course I will yes. Emma Harper. Thank you Mr Wilt for taking an intervention. It's interesting what you say that you make a blanket statement about the SNP and the Greens just talking down rural but never once in this chamber have I ever talked down our rural economy. So I'd like you to just acknowledge that. Through the chair please. I apologise. Scotland's red meat sector supports over 39,000 jobs and Scotland generates roughly 839 million in GVA. Those on the ground are worried for the future of the livestock industry. A combination of ageing population, low business margins and market uncertainty created by Government policy are worried for the future of the livestock industry. A combination of ageing population created by Government policy are putting new entrants off. Farming is seen as a lifestyle not necessarily as a business but people still need to be able to make ends meet. There is a minimum threshold of livestock that farms must meet to make livestock farming profitable. There is real concern on the ground that a lack of replacement in breeding cattle could spell the collapse of the livestock market and associated economies very soon and that is you, Scottish Government. Profitable farms spend in rural and local economies. Profitable farms underpin the rural economy. Profitable farms have the money to invest in environmental schemes. The framework agricultural bill is causing uncertainty in the market. People on the ground need to know what will be in the secondary legislation to plan for future markets in time. If you add in the inadequate investment in transport including roads, rail and bus routes, electric car charging points, hydrogen transport and for heavy goods vehicles, all leading to an inability to attract business and jobs and the end result is the migration of people from rural to urban. When the Scottish Government came up with this policy of independence required to deliver an inward migration to solve rural and island depopulation, what they failed to grasp is actually their policies that have systematically attacked and devalued their rural communities and caused this depopulation over the last 16 years. The HPMA, much as I welcome Manny McCallan's announcement about that U-turn, in one cannot help but recognise the huge amount of wasted time both government and industry time in coming to an inevitable conclusion all that the Scottish Government have achieved is disquieting a whole industry. Too many rural policies are created by urban based green ideologically driven politicians who create nothing about pragmatism and realism and I say to the SNP that you have allowed this to happen. For the sake of our rural communities our rural estates and our food producers the Scottish Government must ditch the ideological driven policies get a dose of practicality and pragmatism ditch the greens and start creating a policy that supports a rural economy before it's nothing left. Colin Smyth, to be followed by Stephen Kerr in four minutes. Thank you to Finlay Carson for the opportunity to debate the contribution of our estates on our economy. How we use our land matters to those who live in the land those whose livelihoods depend on working that land and those who enjoy its rich diversity so we've got a duty to ensure that the custodians of that land manage it in a way that contributes to the wellbeing of our country. Given that over 4.1 million hectares of rural Scotland is owned by Scotland's over a thousand rural estates those estates are clearly key players in delivering that duty. The Scotland land and estates report on the contribution of rural estates to Scotland's wellbeing economy is a useful and timely contribution to the debate on the role of estates in delivering for jobs, for nature, for leisure and ultimately how they'll contribute to delivering that low-carbon future. The very fact that this research has been carried out is an important step forward. The bigger economics research shows that those estates provide homes for 13,000 families land for 14,000 rural enterprise as they bring 5.4 million day visits to enjoy the natural environment the account for over half of Scotland's renewable energy generating capacity, vital carbon sequestration and they generate 2.4 billion gva per year for the Scottish economy supporting around 57,300 rural jobs. There are positive examples of my own South Scotland region of estates providing those diverse contributions whether it's the biodiversity improvements from new hedgerows, ponds, native woodland regeneration at the Roxburgh estate in the Scottish Borders the positive tourism offer mentioned by Finlay Castle and everything from yoga to wellbeing retreats at the Barwell anti-estate near Castle Douglas or the sustainable farming and food production that provides the quality of lamb and award-winning wool at Castle Malkin Corrie estate near Lockerbie which also has strong ties with the local community through the Lockerbie wildlife trust which manages the fantastic S-Rig nature reserve on the estate. All three of those estates are also important providers of affordable housing and vital jobs to the local rural communities but the report for Scotland Land and Estates is right to highlight that there is more to be done. It means that the nature and climate crisis is a deep population of our rural communities the barriers to affordable housing the scourge of low pay in rural communities always requires us to re-evaluate the way we manage our land Those of us who represent rural communities will have had to represent constituents who are tenants of homes or farms on estates or neighbours to estates who found themselves in dispute because of the way that land is being managed and there are examples where it has taken changes in estate ownership to inject a new lease of life into land through a new approach such as the Tarras valley nature reserve in the Estelle valley there the community raised an astonishing £6 million to fund a community buyout of 10,000 acres of Langham Mawr from the Buclwet estate their action to tackle that are taking intervention into it I'm very grateful for Colin Smyth for giving way I wonder if he agrees with me that his colleague Mercedes Villalbaugh's plan to limit the amount of land that can go to 500 hectares is completely and utterly unworkable Colin Smyth That's not actually what the bill proposes it's a public interest test for sales of land over a certain amount and I have to say that any land owner shouldn't be frightened of a public interest test when it comes to the use of their land because it is important that that land is used in the most productive way and in the way that actually meets the interests of the communities the action of highlighted at Tarras valley near Estelle when it comes to tackling some of those issues is visionary and it is impressive they have driven the way forward when it comes to people in restoration and with the support of the Woodland Trust the expansion of native Woodland and the restoration of ancient Woodland and the educational opportunities now being provided on that Mawr that weren't there before are just part of their inspiring vision and plans for the community but there are also changes in ownership and the growing threat such as the rise of so-called green layers and that's why issues around the public interest test are so vital Scotland's largely unregulated land market is allowing companies to buy huge swathes of land so that they can claim green credentials by offsetting their carbon with little contribution to the wellbeing economy so it is vital that as this Parliament does turn its attention to important legislation on land reform we do seek to ensure that the ownership of user land is productive and ultimately in the public interest but when that land, that legislation is passed there is no doubt that Scotland's rural estates will still be important players in delivering that work needed to achieve a wellbeing economy so I want to end by thanking those who deliver many of the outcomes that are in this important report and that's the estate workers themselves it's their skills, their graft that maintains a land that manages the environment that creates the wealth that benefits so many people in our community so I want to end by thanking those estate workers past and present for the contribution they've made to these achievements Thank you, and I call Stephen Kerr to be followed by Emma Harper in four minutes Mr Kerr. Congratulations to Finlay Carson for bringing this important debate to the chamber and for his speech it is an important debate because I think Scotland's estates are some of the least understood places not least by the urban centric signatories to the bute house agreement now visiting in this state as I had the privilege of doing recently at Glen Ogill in Angus is the very definition of wellbeing fresh air abundant wildlife the kind of scenery that reminds us all that this really is the most beautiful country on earth but when this SNP Green government refers to Scotland's estates it's easy to imagine of them referring to some kind of pre-Victorian pantomime of wicked land owners and rich visitors unrecognisable to anyone who lives on or visits a modern Scottish estate of course it's not simply a matter of who owns the land that point was made well by previous speakers but the deplorable ignorance of the SNP Green Scottish Government over rural matters is legendary they have failed to deliver an agricultural bill which contains anything of substance simply a shell and they hold Scotland back with their ignorant and anti-science ban on gene editing and they have failed rural Scotland by failing to roll out super fast broadband but beyond the SNP Scottish Greens general neglect of rural Scotland estates, land owners and wildlife managers are under siege by a government intent on their destruction through their intrusive and ill-informed regulation of wildlife management the very management by highly skilled land managers and gamekeepers often with decades of experience which keeps estates going and brings millions of pounds to local economies and all of the social infrastructure that Kate Forbes mentioned of course I will I disagree with just licensing given that most of the sporting estates have a licensing regime is that what he objects to? I object to unnecessary licensing I object to unnecessary government interference I object to people who have nothing about rural Scotland trying to interfere in the way that rural Scotland is managed grouse shooting generates over 23 million pounds for the rural economy and supports more than a thousand full-time equivalent rural jobs in Scotland are more besides because these jobs allow young families to stay in rural areas and other local tourism-related businesses to emerge and this is achieved without mainstream agri-environmental scheme subsidies or significant financial support from the government Presiding Officer, wellbeing on shooting estates extends to the many species of birds that live there there are professionally managed havens for many moorland ground-nesting birds such as the curlew and the golden plover lapwing, curlew, golden plover were found to fledge more than three times as many young when predator control was carried out compared to without it these are the same skilled practices that the SNP green government seek to suffocate with clueless virtue signalling and pandering to urban elites I have spoken mostly of fauna by referring to how sporting estates promote the wellbeing of flora specifically heather that most potent symbol of Scotland between the 1940s and the 1980s moors that stopped grouse shooting lost 41% of their heather cover while moors retaining shooting lost only 24% that path, that bothy, that cottage is not in good condition by chance they have been cherished and nurtured across centuries the generations of custodians who have cared for and improved and embellished these naturally lovely places to make them the national treasures that they are today for the SNP to seek to thwart those on rural estates who do so much to keep Scottish countryside beautiful and functional for visitors and economically and socially viable for local communities shows how little they know about vast sways of our country that they claim to speak for Emma Harper to be followed by Murdo Fraser I would like to thank Scottish Land and Estates for the helpful briefing and for the work that they do to support Scotland's estates which play a crucial role in Scottish society and for the wellbeing of our nation and I will thank Finlay Carson for securing this debate because it is really important to discuss it today and just a PD mention that I am co-convener of the wellbeing economy cross-party group as well as a rural policy cross-party group with my colleague Edward Mountain with Scotland's 1,125 rural estates covering a combined 4.1 million hectares around 57% of Scotland's rural land those familiar with the sector are well aware of the contribution it makes to the Scottish economy and society it is important that we highlight that as good news and however out with the sector the contribution is not well recognised or widely understood I want to touch on some of my engagement with estates across Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders on the important role that they play in supporting our rural communities rural economies and in promoting and protecting biodiversity and in promoting wellbeing Rural estates generate an estimated £2.4 billion each year and supports thousands of jobs as has been mentioned by members and this makes a significant contribution to Scotland's economic growth an important indicator of economic progress but an even more important contribution to Scotland's rural communities and I welcome that many of Scotland's rural estates around 64% pay staff at a wage that is on average equivalent to or higher than the national living wage the jobs supported I will If you are really really quick because every time you stand up you do a speech I'm not sure I'd be allowed to do that but anyway the point I wanted to make was Emma Harper was very quick to intervene on my colleague when he was citing the SNP and Scottish Green and the Government and their ignorance of rural Scotland can I ask her in her conversations she's had with the people that she's mentioning in her speech have they not told her what they tell all of us about how they feel about the Scottish National Party and the Green Government Emma Harper so thank you for that intervention it wasn't as short as what I was hoping but in my engagement with the estates they're actually very respectful and polite actually and we've been very frank in our discussions about how we do take forward what we need to do with land use and other things that I'm going to come to on the jobs supported by rural estates sustain the populations in some of the most fragile rural communities but the contribution that estates make to rural communities is wider than this and evidence presented by Scottish land and estates shows that rural estates provide homes for around 8,250 private tenants and around 4,700 agricultural tenants across Scotland and these homes underpin many rural communities enabling people to live in parts of Scotland where housing options would otherwise be limited and rural estates also lease land to around 1,400 crofters and farmers and these enterprises form the backbone of many Scottish communities and therefore play an important role in creating the thriving resilient communities envisaged in the Government's national outcomes framework Presiding Officer, since my election in 2021 I have been able to visit and engage with the estate owners and managers of the land across D&G in the borders and recently, during the October recess I visited Dalswinton estate and I met Peter Landale to discuss how Scotland's estates are working to support rural communities rural housing and to meet Scotland's net zero targets in the face of the global climate and biodiversity emergencies. We discussed how we define sustainability and what Peter described was efficiency of production animal welfare, carbon sequestration biodiversity, quality and community. The cabinet secretary, Mary McCallan took a question from me last week about sustainability definition. I'm conscious of time, Presiding Officer, but what I would like to say is Dalswinton, just like Ray Hill's estate near Moffitt, which I spent time visiting early in the summer we talked very frankly about what can be done for rural estates to work to support biodiversity and tackle the climate emergency. One thing that Dalswinton estate has done is that they have provided the local cafe in the village to Emma Pagan rent free to help provide a community cafe and a space for residents and visitors and Emma is also an amazing florist. One of the things that I'm finding that Dalswinton estate has been really good at also is providing business space for Clackston's whisky so that Clackston's can grow and expand their business in the south of Scotland. I'll stop there, Presiding Officer, but again, I welcome this debate. It was a very positive motion put forward by Mr Carson, and that's what I wanted to focus on today. Thank you very much indeed, and I call Murdo Fraser to be followed by Ari-Anne Burgess. In four minutes, Mr Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I congratulate Finlay Carson on securing this debate and thank him for his speech. Indeed, we've heard some very good contributions throughout this debate that others have made, but like others would highlight the briefing from Scottish land and estates, highlighting the work done by estates in creating employment, in providing social housing, investing in renewable energy, promoting diversity and conservation. That's very welcome. Too many times in this chamber are discussions on land use patterns. Are characterised by ignorance, misinformation, prejudice and bigotry. This debate has been a very welcome counterbalance to that, with a focus on facts and reality. I hope that when we have future debates we'll hear more of that and less of the other. To give one example of an estate in my region, which I think is an exemplar in terms of the contribution that estates make, I quote, Athol estates based in Blair Athol in Perthshire. Involved in a whole range of activities, agriculture in hand and let farming, forestry, tourism, renewable energy projects, traditional sporting activities, which we should not lose sight of, short-term let's, provision of social housing, start-up units for small businesses. Altogether providing employment directly for 90 people in a rural community, all of them being paid at least the real living wage. That is an enormous economic contribution and a level of employment that would not be possible in a rural area with other land use patterns. On top of all that, Athol estates have an excellent record of engaging with the local community and supporting local community events. That pattern of land ownership and use through the traditional estate with that mixed use is one that sustains a level of employment that would not be possible with other land use patterns. What we've seen over recent years in particular is the growth of what are called the green lords, which to me is a pernicious development in rural Scotland, where you see large corporates buying up parts of large tracts of land and denuding them of human life and activity and removing employment. That to me is a very regrettable step, Presiding Officer. That is done sometimes dressed up with the best of intentions trying to meet climate change targets with so-called rewilding. Rewilding is simply taking productive land and making it barren and driving away human activity and employment. Yes, I'll give way. Colin Smyth. Does Murdo Fraser agree with me there that the rise of so-called green lords does mean that we do need to see better regulation when it does come to the sale of mass amounts of our land because lots of these sales for example are carried out in private that the local communities don't even know that they are taking place so they can't even, for example, declare an interest and perch that land because it is effectively done off the books and it is important that we have more openness and more public interest when it does come to the sale of these estates and we will see that rise in green lords continue. What I would like to see is a revision of the whole policy approach towards meeting carbon targets that rewards large corporates for buying up what are productive areas of rural Scotland and turning them over either to so-called rewilding or over to forestry and planting citrus roots in large numbers taking land out of potential agricultural and sporting use. Meeting planting more trees is good for the climate, but let's not kid ourselves. Planting trees destroys employment because once you employ the people to plant the trees and come in as contract workers the trees are left for 10 or 15 years you don't need any workers to look after that land for many years to come and if you're taking land that was used for agriculture or for sporting interests and turning it over to forestry you're taking away jobs. We see that in the Glenprosun estate in Angus where what was a productive mix-use estate sustaining employment jobs have been lost jobs in the local community with families living there families whose children were at the local school the local community and the local economy those jobs are lost and will not be replaced in our lifetimes because trees are being planted so we need to consider these issues extremely carefully we need to see vibrant local community we need to see people employed in rural areas and the best way to deliver that we have at the moment is the traditional mix-use Highland estate that is what we're debating here and that is what we should champion and should be very careful about promoting other types of land use which are destroying employment in the areas where we need it Thank you Mr Fraser before calling the next speaker I'm conscious the number of speakers that still want to contribute so I'm minded to accept a motion under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes and I invite Finlay Carson to move such a motion I'll move the motion is that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes are we all agreed that is agreed and with that I call Arrian Burgess to be followed by Rachel Hamilton around 4 minutes Ms Burgess Thank you Presiding Officer a wellbeing economy serves people and planet putting our human and planetary needs at its heart we require a huge economic and social shift and I'm delighted to see so much engagement with these ideas from across the political spectrum today the principles of a wellbeing economy underpin the nature restoration fund that's helping Scotland's species Woodlands rivers and seas back on the road to recovery as well as improving the health and wellbeing of local communities Greens in government will deliver £60 million through the fund during this Parliament directly supporting jobs and nature particularly in our rural communities as a Highlands and Islands MSP I've had the privilege of seeing pioneering nature restoration projects up close when Dunedragon Estate now managed by Trees for Life was operated as farming and forestry it employed just one person once the rewilding centre is fully operational it will employ 28 people in sectors from hospitality to administration operations and wildlife management rewilding and mean re-peopling yet the continuation of game shooting on 120 of Scotland's estates relies on practices that cause environmental damage and harm the nature that our people treasure how can a wellbeing economy include killing thousands of wild animals each year to optimise conditions for killing grouse for sport how can a wellbeing economy include setting our hills on fire inhibiting the spread of sphagnum moss polluting rivers causing our precious deep peat to dry out releasing pollutants in carbon and contributing to climate change how can we afford our land to have so little positive impact game shooting accounts for less than one tenth of one percent of our rural employment the economic and social costs of ecological degradation are felt by everyone while the profits of this exploitation have flowed to very few and this must change community and a state led conservation and tourism projects demonstrate how successful new jobs in conservation wildlife management and wildlife tourism can bring forward can bring work and life back to our rural communities I'll take an intervention from Finlay Carson I thank the member for giving away I'm just wondering whether she read the report published by scotland in estates before she committed to contribute to this debate Ariane Burgess and give the time back I'm using other information that I have I have the latter sector alone generates £276 million every year for the Scottish economy and public access to Scotland's land is key for the success of this growing sector societal shifts are challenging it means moving out from outdated ideas of what Scotland's countryside should look like and I'm glad to hear that members of the Tories have been describing that as well to reimagining how it could look if we prioritise nature environment and rebuilding our communities while deer grazing on our hillsides are a familiar sight but there is increasing evidence to show that reducing deer levels and maintaining them could lead to a net increase in employment as well as enabling the restoration of Scotland's rainforest this requires a joined up approach not just working with landowners but also ensuring local people are skilled in wildlife management and that there are local markets for venison estates can be partners and innovators whether that's trialling technology for offence grazing or developing highly efficient self-build housing as in Rothi Murkis or from maria estates to highlands rewilding in Bunladen, Bell Dornig and Te Viallach landowners, land managers workers and rural communities can be world leaders in accelerating nature based solutions to biodiversity collapse and climate breakdown all while helping to rebuild local economies in a way that addresses social and environmental inequality that's the meaning of a well-being economy now let's make that happen thank you thank you I first praise my colleague Finlay Carson aka Hector McDonald for securing two nights debate and also Sarah Madden from The Valley and bigger economics who helped put together the report the people who live and work in rural Scotland and their estates as well as their families and the wider community should be in no doubt that the Scottish Conservatives value their contribution to Scotland's economy we have heard some complete nonsense tonight from the Green Party presiding officer I'm absolutely shocked that Arrian Burgess has not recognised or read the contribution that estates and rural Scotland make through the report itself because that is what we are debating one in ten rural jobs are on estates rural estates are the engine rooms of rural growth they form the backbone of many of our rural communities and it's worth highlighting some of the significant roles in our communities the SLA paper itself on this topic said that 83% of our rural estates provide practical support to communities in times of need and my goodness we have needed them when we've seen storm Bebet when we've seen storm Arwyn they've been there to clear snow they've been there to clear the trees and cut the trees allowing communities to ensure that they can get to shops and children can get to schools probably another hard winter but no one thanks them for that and no one cares particularly on those benches over there because they have to stand up for themselves and that's exactly what this report does across rural Scotland people feel forgotten by this SNP and Green coalition who remain completely out of touch with their priorities today's debate has shown that there is a lot of concern about the future of rural communities I believe the debate that Fergus Ewing referenced last week on rural housing highlighted many of the reasons behind this we could allow rural estates to provide a solutions to some of the problems that we face in Scotland on a single estate in my constituency in the borders the Roxburgh estate mentioned by Emma Harper that provides almost 200 residential properties for families and estate workers and the total number of homes provided by estates nationally is over 13,000 and I know that given the opportunity they would do even more to support the issues that we have around the lack of affordable housing in rural communities if they could rural estates and farms have one arm tied behind their backs because of this Government it's an archaic planning system stifling the development of the right homes in the right places and permitted development rights and extension of that should be allowed they are right to push back and damaging rent controls measures which after one year have only served to drive up rents and drive out investment barriers like the additional dwelling supplement preventing them from providing homes for rural workers and all of this must be set in the context of an SNP Government that have cut the housing budget and that is short changing our rural communities our rural estates are up against it with this lot with this lot in power the SNP and Greens in power some are even considering divesting from the private rental sector and if the properties go as Kate Forbes said the schools go, the pubs go and I've drawn members to my register of interest because I've got one the Kirk sorry did you want to intervene I just wanted to clarify whether it was a school or a pub you had roots of Hamilton I just look at my register of interest but this evening we've heard so much about what is good about what rural estates are doing they're supporting livelihoods they're enhancing biodiversity and working towards our net zero future they're creating resilience in our rural communities I would just reiterate what Stephen Kerr said that rural Scotland is being left behind by metropolitan elites who signed the butyne agreement they are central belt mandarins who are telling rural estates our country custodians what to do and they're saying that what they're doing is wrong I would just wonder what the consideration of their wellbeing is they're under attack from a government and that's reflected in the plethora of poorly evidence legislation that has passed and is coming straight down the track I'm afraid that I had a lot more positive to give tonight but from the contributions that I've heard particularly from Arian Burgess I have had to change my speech to stand up for rural Scotland and I will continue to do that thank you and I'll call finally briefly Edward Mountain and I will keep my comments brief I want to just remind members of my register of interest that I farm a 500 acre farm in Murray I don't have an estate where anyone makes any comments but I spent 15 years managing them and I want to make this point to people who spend time criticising them most rural estates that I managed and there were quite a few that didn't have hydro or wind farms relied on the income of the owner to make things happen it was not unusual on an annual basis to go back to some of the bigger estates and ask the owner for £600,000 or more to make that estate function on an annual basis that £600,000 is not pre-taxed that is taxed income which the owner has to introduce to make the estates work and we need to understand that and we need to understand that for altruistic motives and you can argue whether foreign estate owners are the right people to own land but without them there would be no estates and we would not be achieving the amount that is being achieved and I am going to conclude by just saying this having been involved in the management of upland estates I weep when I leave this chamber in the evening when I hear people pontificate how they know about the management of an estate how they know about managing deer how they know about peatland management when they have read about it in a book get out there on the ground and do it it is hard work and you might learn more than just getting ink on your fingers thank you Presiding Officer thank you and I now invite the minister to respond to the debate around seven minutes minister thank you very much I am here on behalf of the Scottish Government Richard Lochhead was supposed to be here so I am here to respond but I have really enjoyed listening to the debate and I particularly want to pay tribute to Finlay Carson for bringing the motion today but also for a really excellent speech which really outlined the real positives that is on offer from the estates across Scotland and that sort of breadth of offer that they give to rural communities that was an excellent speech taken in the report commissioned by Scottish land estates the contribution to rural estates to Scotland's wellbeing economy it sets out a positive vision not only of how rural estates contribute to Scotland's rural economy but also how they may support our transition to a wellbeing economy an opportunity that Deputy First Minister discussed at our visit to Rottel estate yesterday speaking to visits to estates I may take this opportunity to remind both on the Eclare committee in the last Parliament where it was actually Glenfeshia estate where they had actually taken part of the land that was really degraded it was mainly just heather and they had shown us old photographs of it and they had taken a chance of it and they had actually done some rewilding and not the type that was characterised by Murdo Fraser where I know exactly where those criticisms lie but it was absolutely incredible to see the work that had been done that was there as a result and many species actually coming back that they hadn't seen for a very long time indeed it was really a superb visit Scotland, I want to talk a little bit about the wellbeing economy Scotland is leading the wellbeing economy agenda on the international stage one of the founding members of the wellbeing economy governments network and our unique position in terms of our landscape and our topography gives us a head start in that regard and that access to nature of that wellbeing it's not for nothing that you have social prescribing from GP's and doctors these days about access to nature for people because it really does make a difference to a person's health in our view, economic activity should be geared from the outset towards the creation of fairer more sustainable and healthier society so making that just transition to a net zero net positive wellbeing economy is a strategic priority for the Scottish government across Europe are looking at and learning from and that's why that principle of a wellbeing economy is central to the governments three interconnected missions on equality, opportunity and community I want to talk about some of the contributions that members have made during the debate I have to say that Fergus Ewing, a passionate advocate for rural Scotland his entire life and very wise words on him I thought that the points that he made about housing were particularly pertinent Are we doing enough for rural Scotland to build their own housing compared to other jurisdictions where there is an opportunity for more unique housing to be built by people is possibly something that we should be looking at I certainly find that in my constituency as well Fergus Ewing I'm very grateful for the warm and generous remarks and the way in which the ministers are addressing this debate generally Is she aware though that the clock is ticking this session of parliament is nearly is over halfway through it takes miles to do things and that really if we're going to have permitted development then the government really do need to get on with it the minister of housing was sympathetic to this so I'm hoping that there could be a cross ministerial support for this and we've heard there's other political support so would the minister go away with her colleagues to give consideration to any forward permitted development proposals urgently I'm glad to hear that Paul McLean was sympathetic and it's actually something even in the energy portfolio that I've been looking at about community benefits around this space because rural housing is a real pressure point particularly for the highlands and islands and that's going to be an area that's going to be hosting a lot of energy infrastructure so there maybe has to be something there in terms of community benefits but I'm going off-piste during the summer I was actually a community energy operation in Pinpoint in the Emma Harper's region and the blue estate had actually given over the land for the generator and access to the water that they owned as well so it was a partner and that was a case of an estate really working with the local community for benefit was great to see and also she mentioned about licensing land to crofters as well I'm very aware of that as well and it was great to hear both Murdo Fraser and Emma Harper mentioning the fact that many estates are pairs of the living wage this is the living wage week and it's a good time to mention that Brian Whittle concentrated quite a lot of these remarks on farming but I had a ride smile when I thought of Brian Whittle reading the building a new Scotland paper last week at bedtime Cullen Smith I was great to hear Cullen Smith mention that the contribution that estates make to carbon secretion and biodiversity a lot of our estates are host to a lot of our peatlands as well and he'll know that I have peatland restoration in my portfolio and also that feeds into what Rachel Hamilton was saying particularly about the flooding but also peatland and the moorlands that we've got can mitigate flooding as well and we ignore that at our peril and Arianne Burgess that public access to land I think it's really important that it comes back to that wellbeing agenda as well the land of Scotland it might be owned by particular individuals but it is all of our land it is our country I've reminded of a great lyric from another son of Persia Dougie McLean you cannot own the land, the land owns you we are all visitors and custodians and that land will remain long after that we're all gone Edward Mountain I will reference what Edward said he makes a good point about the huge investment many landowners do make to their estates as well and certainly that point was made to myself and Finlay Carson at Glenfessie when we were talking about economics work there I want to say a little bit before I sit down about community wealth being it's a key tool to help us achieve an economy that's focused on delivering wellbeing on and growing that local wealth and giving communities a greater stake in the economy and it was really great to hear today how estates are involved in that leasing land, giving land helping local businesses to set up is that a contribution I was really heartened to hear of examples like that but I am running out of time so I just want to say in conclusion this debate's been an excellent opportunity to allow us all to reflect on the work undertaken by bigger economics on behalf of Scottish land and estates in the report that Mr Carson mentioned in his motion and the approach that they've taken to assessing the contribution of the estates of rural Scotland and what they do to enhance Scotland's national performance more generally and our own wellbeing I'll continue to work with Scottish lands and estates it's a key delivery partner of the Scottish government ensuring that it will work together improve the outcomes of the people and communities of rural Scotland and drive forward delivery of this Government's vision for a wellbeing economy Thank you That concludes the debate and I close this meeting of Parliament


My pain is my greatest gift, if I listen to it. When I was in my early 20s and I had found this girl that I was really romantically interested in, and I was super excited about asking her out and super afraid, and eventually I managed to muster up the guts to ask her out, and she rejected me, which was pretty much a common occurrence at that stage in my life. It was around that time afterwards that I heard her talking to a friend, and she was talking about how skinny I was, almost like I had a kid's body, like a child's body. And this was one of those things that kind of struck me to the core because it was something I was always insecure about, that I didn't have my ideal body, that I was born really skinny, I had those kind of genetics. But it was the pain from that rejection and from many others, not just that one, that drove me to want to become the kind of person that I would respect, that I would admire. The kind of person that was hungry to improve his life, that thought, hey, Alex, you're great now, but you can do a hell of a lot better. It was that pain that became my gift because I listened to it, instead of just complaining. It was my pain sitting at a meaningless job for 40, 50 hours a week, wondering what the purpose of my life was, sitting there on a piece of land, earning my salary, dying day by day, death by a thousand cuts, wondering what my purpose was, what the point of all this was. If I'm going to die tomorrow, why do this? I didn't want to be at that job. It was that pain that drove me to become my own boss, to become an entrepreneur who could do the things that he formerly thought was impossible. Because I never in a million years thought I could become an entrepreneur, I could write multiple books, I could become successful, I could become a YouTuber. Those weren't possible for me at the time, but my pain was my gift because I listened to it and it drove me. I wanted to see the world because I was stuck at that cubicle for so many years and I saw my friends going off and having these once in a lifetime experiences and I knew that at the end of our lives they would be the ones dying fulfilled and I would be the one dying empty because I was working and I wasn't enjoying my life and experiencing all these things. But just like you can run away from love, you can ignore the pain and continue living the same life and being the same person. My pain is my greatest gift if I listen to it. Your story of being abused as a kid and never ever wanting to have a dysfunctional marriage like you saw your parents have, of never ever wanting to be beaten by your dad and therefore beating your kids, your story of being born in a ghetto in a poor area where you never had opportunity or healthy food or happy people, that story of the household you were born in that was pure poison, that pain will drive you as your greatest gift to become the world's best mom, the world's best dad, to have a marriage and just one marriage.  My pain is my greatest gift if I listen to it. Your story of being rejected by love, that one person you thought truly was the one and now they're gone and you're left feeling that you're not good enough. After the bitterness subsides, that rejection will become the exact force to drive yourself and improve yourself at a level that you have never seen before in your life. If you allow it, if you don't fall into the bitterness and the sadness and the victimization, my pain is my greatest gift if I listen to it. And of all the things that happen to you in your life, pain will happen. Pain is guaranteed, pain is a necessity of existing for existing as a human on this planet in this body.


15 to 3 on the pregame today. You talked about power and the passion. We saw it all over the place today for the angst We absolutely did Bob. We saw an annihilation I mean the Yankees seven home runs in this game Sanchez with three Frazier with two Torres and Romain with one a piece and that's what the Yankee offense is about and yes You want to supplement your offense with smart at bats and productive hits and you want to be good with runners in scoring position But the Yankees are built around the home run. That's who they are They set a major league record for home runs last year and we're seeing why they can just go out and pulverize pitching We talked before this series Bob about how Camden yards can be a tonic for any lineup and get your offense energized And that's exactly what the Yankees did in this three game series 14 home runs So while you were talking I was doing breathing exercises to get through this highlight rip


There are many who believe that the American Revolution began with that fateful shot on Lexington Green in Massachusetts. But in many ways, the American Revolution began with letters. I fear that letter writing has fallen out of favor with many people, but in the American colonies, at the latter half of the 18th century, it was the only way for a far-flung people to correspond and exchange ideas. So vital was it to our communication that all the colonies that eventually rebelled against the crown formed committees of correspondence for the express purpose of exchanging information with one another and disseminating that same information to their constituents. Committees of correspondence were used to rally opposition to unlawful acts by the British Parliament, such as the Stamp Act, as well as to inform the citizenry of measures taken by the crown, such as the closing of the Port of Boston. Good day. I am John Dickinson. I have been a lawyer, a representative to the Congress, military officer, author, composer, as well as the President of Pennsylvania and the President of Delaware. However, it was as a letter writer that I first became known on the larger American political stage. In 1767 and 1768, I wrote a series of essays which took the guise of 12 letters from a farmer in Pennsylvania, which treated upon the mounting tension between Great Britain and her North American colonies. These pseudonymous letters written in the voice of a fictional farmer were written as a response to Parliament's unwarranted attempt to exercise authority over us by levying taxes in which we had no consent. The letters proved to be so popular that they were reprinted in 21 of the then operating 25 newspapers in America. The wisdom of the farmer became the subject of conversations in coffee houses and around dinner tables. In taverns across the colonies, glasses were raised and health shrunk to the farmer. Once it became known that I was the author, my name was recognized in households from Nova Scotia to the Carolinas. Meanwhile, relations between the colonies and the mother country continued to erode. The Stamp Act was replaced with taxes on paint and glass and tea, which led to the Boston Tea Party, in response to which the Parliament closed the port of Boston and enacted the coercive acts, or, as they were known here in America, the intolerable acts. In Philadelphia, we found out about the closing of the port when we received a circular letter written from the Boston Committee of Correspondents, which was delivered by Paul Revere, a son of Liberty and a silversmith, better known for his work as a messenger. The committee's letter had already been shown in Connecticut, New York and New Jersey, but any unified response from these colonies to the acts of Parliament would need the support of Philadelphia, the largest port and largest city in America. Letters had also been written by Samuel Adams, John Hancock and Thomas Cushing, addressed to Philadelphia lawyer Joseph Reed and Quaker merchant Thomas Mifflin. The Boston men urged Philadelphia to call a public meeting to discuss the plight of Boston and to suspend trade with Britain. They added that they hoped that the Pennsylvania farmer could attend. So it was that Mr. Reed and Mifflin, joined by Charles Thompson, called upon me, one afternoon in May of 1774, to induce me to intend a meeting at Philadelphia's new city tavern. At first I refused, for I was as equally opposed to submission to the coercive acts as I was to resisting them by force. They prevailed upon me by convincing me that the public might be brought around to a more moderate response through our canny planning. First Mr. Reed would speak with temper and moderation, then Mr. Mifflin would stoke the flames a little higher. Mr. Thompson, by his own admittance a very rash man, would then sweep in and urge an immediate declaration in favor of Boston. Into this tumult I would step offering counsel better adapted to moderation. It worked more or less as planned, even though the histrionic Mr. Thompson seemed to faint right away at the height of his diatribe. Speaking with a cooler head and a measure of good sense, I proposed that a special session of the assembly be called and the formation of our own committee of correspondents to offer our sympathy and support to the city of Boston. Thus, the stage was set for these letter riders to meet in person. As summer approached, the committees of correspondents in Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York called for a Continental Congress and there was no better place for this body to convene than in Philadelphia. The Congress convened on September 5, 1774 in Carpenter's Hall. Twelve British colonies were represented among its membership, Georgia declining to attend. I, however, was not among its delegates. The problem was that a decade before I had made an enemy of Joseph Galloway, who was the Speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly. Though I was the chairman of the committee of correspondents and had done much to prepare for this Continental Congress, Speaker Galloway had determined that only members of the assembly could serve as delegates to the Congress. As I was not currently serving, the doors to Carpenter's Hall were shut to me. This animosity between Mr. Galloway and myself dates back to 1764, when Galloway's political partner, Benjamin Franklin, proposed a measure to remove the Penn family as the proprietors of Pennsylvania and place the Commonwealth under the direct jurisdiction of the King. While I freely acknowledged the problems with the proprietorship and the governance of the Penn family, there are also certain rights and privileges guaranteed by their government. Why should we engage in an enterprise that will render them uncertain? I wasn't opposed, in theory, to the elimination of the proprietorship. I just thought we should wait for some sign of a favorable disposition in the British ministry towards us. I should have liked to see an olive leaf at least brought to us before we quit the Ark. Franklin and Galloway sent a petition to the King asking him to take possession of the colony. And I sent a petition with almost five times as many signatures asking the King to ignore the first petition. The whole notion of royal government for Pennsylvania disappeared. But not before I had earned the lifelong enmity of Joseph Galloway. Fortunately for me, while I may not have been able to, as yet, take formal part in the proceedings of the Continental Congress, many of the delegates came to visit me, and thus I was kept somewhat apprised of the proceedings. The first question that had to be settled before any other measure could be approached by the delegates was how would the votes be apportioned? Should each colony have one vote? Or should votes be allotted to the colonies on the basis of their population or the wealth of their property? Rhode Island argued that each colony was taking the same risk by opposing Great Britain, and therefore each should have the same vote. John Jay of New York countered that a colony with twice the population of some others shouldn't have its vote cut in half. One problem with dividing votes by population was that there wasn't an accurate census of the inhabitants of North America. Therefore there was no data on which to decide how many votes should be given to this or that province. In the end it was decided that each colony would have one vote with the caveat that it would not be irrevocably binding and could be revisited in the future. This first decision had given them a sense of what future deliberations might be like, so the second decision was that no man could speak twice on the same subject without expressed permission, a sensible precaution for anybody that contains both John Adams and Patrick Henry. The next obstacle that had to be overcome was one that could have divided Congress perhaps more than anything else save the distribution of the votes. It had been moved that each session be opened with a prayer. A room full of Anglicans, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Quakers, that proposal was akin to throwing a bit of lit match into a powder-cag. How could such a group ever hope to agree on an individual to give such an invocation? Samuel Adams, who was known to be a very pious and strict man, rose and impressed everyone by declaring that he was no bigot, that he could hear a prayer from any virtuous gentleman so long as he was also a friend to his country. He then went on to suggest that the opening prayer be given by Jacob Duchay, the assistant rector of the largest Anglican church in Philadelphia. The following morning, the Good Reverend opened the session by reading the 35th Psalm. Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive against me. Fight against them that fight against me. Prophetic words indeed. After that, the delegates were divided into committees to discuss the grievances between the colonies and the mother country and suggest resolutions to them. Meanwhile, the committees of correspondence in Suffolk County, Massachusetts had written a series of resolves in response to the closing of the port and the Massachusetts Government Act. The document denounced the coercive acts and resolved to refuse British imports, curtail exports, and to refuse to use British products, to pay no obedience to the Massachusetts Government Bill or the Boston Port Bill, to demand resignation from those appointed under said act, to refuse payment of taxes until the Massachusetts Government Act was repealed, to support a colonial government in Massachusetts free of royal authority until the intolerable acts were repealed, and to urge the colonies to raise militia of their own people. Paul Revere once again made that long and dusty ride from Boston to Philadelphia delivering a copy of the resolves to the Continental Congress. The Congress voted to endorse the Suffolk Resolves without changing so much as a comma. Toward the end of September, the Congress voted to implement a non-importation agreement among the colonies. This was originally intended to halt the import of British products or the export of American products effective December 1. But with warehouses in Virginia still full of tobacco seed ready to plant, the compromise was that the embargo of British goods would begin in December, but the cessation of export would begin the following autumn to allow farmers time to prepare alternative crops. Mr. Galloway insisted that non-importation was too slow a strategy to relieve Boston's plight. He instead submitted a plan for a union between Britain and her colonies. In this plan, each government would form governments much as they had for their own domestic affairs. A president of the colonies would be appointed by the king together with an elected grand council which would be an inferior and distinct branch of the British legislature. The council and the parliament would share authority over general policies requiring the consent of the king's president for implementation. It was a bold plan and not without merit. Just because Mr. Galloway and I do not get along does not mean I cannot see wisdom in attempting to repair the relationship between England and America. When it came time to vote for the measure, five colonies said yes and six said no with Rhode Island's delegates being split down the middle. The proposal was tabled and was never again considered. Before Congress adjourned, it was agreed to expunge all mention of it from the written record. Another blow to Mr. Galloway's ego came on October 1 when I was re-elected to the Pennsylvania Assembly who voted to make me a delegate which would finally allow me to attend the meetings at Carpenter's Hall. I was just in time to vote on the finalized version of the declarations and resolves of the Congress, a document that outlined the grievances of these colonies and listed a colonial Bill of Rights. The grievances were more or less every act that parliament had passed in the colonies and not repealed in the last ten years. They included an objection to the levying of taxes and duties for the purpose of purely raising revenue, the paying of judges' salaries by the Crown, keeping standing armies among the public in times of peace, dissolving our assemblies, extending the rights of Catholics and abolishing English law in the province of Quebec, supplanting the government of Massachusetts, transporting colonists to England for trial and treating our petitions for the redress of grievances with contempt. They enumerated the rights expected based upon the laws of nature and the principles of the English Constitution, namely that we are entitled to life, liberty and property, that our ancestors who settled this country had emigrated from England and were entitled to all the rights and liberties and immunities of free and natural born subjects within the realm, that by their emigration they did not forfeit or surrender any of those rights and that their descendants are entitled to the exercise and an enjoyment of those rights, that the people have a right to participate in their legislative councils, that the colonies and colonists are entitled to the common law of England including a trial by their peers, that they are entitled to the benefit of such English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization and are likewise entitled to all immunities and privileges granted and confirmed by royal charters or secured by provincial laws. They have the right to peaceably assemble, consider their grievances and petition the king, that keeping a standing army in these colonies in times of peace without consent of the legislature of that colony is against the law, that it is indispensably necessary that branches of the legislature be independent of each other, therefore the exercise of legislative power in several colonies by council appointed by the crown is unconstitutional, dangerous and destructive to the freedom of American legislation. By the time I took my seat among the delegates from Pennsylvania the Continental Congress had been in session for almost six weeks. In that time they had endorsed the Suffolk Resolves, compiled a list of grievances and voted to endorse a non-importation agreement. That doesn't seem like a long list of accomplishments but I assure you it is nothing short of miraculous. John Adams once remarked that if a proposition was presented that three and two made five the result was two days of speeches on logic, rhetoric, law, history, politics and mathematics before it last the resolution passed unanimously. The men in that room at Carpenter's Hall were some of the finest minds that America had to offer. They were also some of the most opinionated minds. The fact that they were able to sit down and agree on anything is the greatest accomplishment of what would be the first Continental Congress. All that remained before adjournment was to formalize the ideas of this august body and draw up some sort of compact between us. The document was called the Articles of Association or sometimes the Continental Association. It formalized the decisions that had come from more than a month of debates echoing many tenets of the Suffolk Resolves. First there was an immediate ban on British tea, that commodity whose taxation had landed us in such hot water. Beginning on 1st of December there would be a ban on importing or consuming any goods from Britain, Ireland or the British West Indies. In the document provisions were laid out for an export ban on products from the colonies to Britain, Ireland or the West Indies to take effect on September the 10th, 1775 unless the intolerable acts were repealed. There was also a ban placed on all ships engaged in the slave trade. The association included policies intended to enforce these bans as well as policies that would help Americans endure these deprivations. Local committees of inspection would be established in every colony and any individual found to be violating these articles would be condemned in print and ostracized in society as the enemies of American liberty. If any colony failed to enforce these provisions other colonies would cease all trade and dealings until that colony complied with the bans. The colonies pledged to encourage frugality, economy and industry and to promote agriculture, arts and manufacture in this country especially that of wool and would discounten and discourage every species of extravagance and dissipation such as gambling, theater and frivolity. One other effect of the continental association was that it forced our leaders to publicly take sides. Patriots signed the document, loyalists did not. One of the most important decisions made by the first continental congress was to call for a second continental congress in May of 1775. There was, after all, still much more to discuss and much more work to be done by this fragile alliance of colonies. So it was. Then our last days at Carpenter's Hall we turned once again to letter writing just as we had at the outset of this venture. We extended an invitation to this second congress to Quebec, St. John Island, Nova Scotia, Georgia and East and West Florida. After all, they too had been victims of the overreaching policies of Great Britain and that left just one more letter to write and the responsibility for drafting it fell to me. We sent a petition for the redress of grievances to King George III.  The King was not interested in hearing a petition. As for those on this side of the Atlantic, many thought it was too late for redress. Though it may have fallen on deaf ears, the petition to the King was not a useless gesture, but a necessary one. We have a moral obligation to seek a peaceful resolution to all civil conflict. However, the conflict in North America would not remain peaceful. Less than six months after we adjourned in Philadelphia, war began in Massachusetts, a war that would catch up 13 colonies into a rebellion. The First Continental Congress is often overlooked or seen as being less important than later events, but it was a vital first step in establishing ourselves as a people. The 56 delegates who met in Philadelphia from September to October of 1774 paved the way for the debates that would come and set the foundation of a nation.


Damascus before the conflict. Modern, vibrant, beautiful. It was the 15th of March 2011. News began filtering through of violence in a town called Dara. It was the beginning of Syria's descent into war. The fighting, the bombing. As ever, it is the ordinary people who suffers. The elderly, the young, the vulnerable. We did our best and we have done a lot. Crossing front lines with our colleagues from the Syrian Arab Red Crescent. Take Madaya, the sight on the faces of those children with something I will never forget, like in so many other places. Across the country, I have seen homes, hospitals, schools, electricity and water facilities damaged or destroyed. So many places on the siege. And then the displacement of so many people, millions of people. The people do their best. They show incredible endurance and fortitude against the odds. But I ask myself, for how long will they have to endure? Delivering aid saves lives, but it will not solve the problem. Syria is a political problem and must be solved politically.


In this video I'm going to talk about determining whether a relation is a function. So basically what we're going to do here is we're going to look at a couple of actually real life examples of when something is a relation, hopefully getting a better understanding of what a function is. Excuse me. Try to determine whether a relation is a function. Because there's many, many things that have relationships. There's two different items that will have relationships. But does that relation actually, is that relation actually a function? That's what we're trying to determine here. Get a better understanding of what a function actually is. Okay, so a little bit of vocabulary here before we get started. A function, I like to think of it this way. A function for every input, you have a unique output. So for every time you plug something in, you're only going to get one result. That's kind of how I see a function. Okay, there's lots of different ways to look at it. But that's kind of my way of, my simple way of understanding what a function is. For every input that you have, you're going to have a unique output. So whenever you plug something in, you're only going to get one answer. You're only going to get one solution or you're only going to get one thing. So we're going to use a couple of real life examples to try to get a better understanding of what a function is. Okay, so determine whether each relation is a function. So here we go. These are two separate relations. You've got one on the left here, one on the right. I'll start with the one here on the left. And the items in a store to their prices on a certain date. Okay, so the items in a store to their prices on a certain date. Okay, so we have items in a store. Let's actually just start with that. Items in a store. So I go to the grocery store with mom and dad because I'm a good son or daughter. And I go grocery shopping. I'm picking up a couple of things. We get Doritos. We get cereal. We get a couple of things. So a couple of things that you can get at the store. We can get chips, Doritos, whatever it is that you like. You can get chips. We can get cereal. We can get milk. And we can get, I don't know, lunch meat. Yeah, lunch meat for sandwiches, something like that. Okay, just a couple of things you can see in the store. Now the thing is, is writing these down, these are kind of the first, these are the, this is the first piece of my relation. Again, relations is a comparison of two different things. So here's my first set of things. These are all just things in the store. Okay, so two, now this two where that's kind of want to pay attention to. This kind of gives you the division between your two things. The items in the store, two, their prices on a certain date. So that's kind of the division between the two. How you can tell what my two, what my two pieces are, what my two pieces in the relation are. Okay, so items in the store, here's four items that we have. And then their prices on a certain date. Now we actually have to say certain date, because some items will go on sale one day, so it'll be different prices other days, something to that effect. But I get chips maybe two for $6 one day, and then the next day they're $4.50, back up to the regular price, whatever the case may be. So we're putting here on a certain date, so we're just looking at one day, we're not looking over the course of a week, or something to that effect to really confuse us. Okay, so we're looking at the prices for on a certain date. So chips, chips on this certain date are usually going to be something to the effect of about $4.50, something like that. Okay, sometimes you're Doritos, sometimes you're Lace, chips, whatever they are, they're about that. Okay, cereal, cereal on the other hand is going to be just a little bit cheaper, maybe I'm buying, maybe an Off-Brand or something like that, we're going to go with $2.89 for a box. Okay, now for milk on this certain day, maybe milk is on sale, and then milk is also going to be $2.89. Okay, stocking up on milk for the week might buy a couple of gallons, something to that effect. Now, notice here that I've got two arrows going to the same price. This is going to be okay, we'll talk about this here in a minute. Okay, lunch meat on the other hand, this is going to be, let's get a round number of about $5. So $5 for a pound of sliced lunch meat for lunches for school or whatever the case is. Okay, so now as I look at all these numbers, this is just a random example to come up with nothing too extraordinary. But I have chips, cereal, milk, and lunch meat. These are all my inputs. This is all the first part of my relation, from the items in the store. These are my inputs. So these are things that I put into my cart. And then these are the prices, these are the outputs. These are the prices on that certain date. Okay, now the thing is, we want to figure out, is this a function or not? Okay, so again, a function is, for every input, there is a unique output. So whenever you plug something in, you're only going to get one answer. Okay, you're only going to get one answer. So, okay, so if I plug in chips, if I put chips into my cart, they're only going to be $4.50. Now we're speaking of specific type chips. We'll go Doritos. So when I put Doritos in my cart, they're only going to be $4.50. Because if that's what they say on the shelf, when it goes up to the counter, that's what they're going to ring up at. It's not going to change. That's what we call a unique output. So a single input of my Doritos gets a single output of $4.50 up at the register. Okay, same thing here. Serial is $2.89 for this box of cereal. Okay, so again, when I get cereal, it's not going to be a different price. It's going to be the same price I see on the shelf. $2.89. Now this work might get a little confusing, but again, you just stick with the same logic. Milk is then when I look at milk on the shelf, it's $2.89. So milk, when I go up to the register, it's still going to be $2.89. That's a unique price for milk. Now yes, cereal and milk do share the same price, but what we're looking at is a function for every input. It has a unique output. A function, whatever you plug in, I'm only going to get one result. So when I put milk into my cart, it's only going to be $2.89. That's okay. Yes, you can have multiple items that go to the same price, but it's still going to be okay for a function. Okay, and then luncheon meat on the other hand, same thing with chips up here. Lunch meat has a unique answer of $5. $5 for a pound of lunch meat. Okay, so this case, this one is actually a function. This is an example of a function. Okay, so this is an example of a function. And again, this right here, it might be a little bit confusing since they're going to the same number, but again, you've got to remember, functions for every input, there's a unique output. So for whenever I plug something in, I only get one answer. When I plug cereal in, I get one answer. When I plug milk in, I get one answer. That's okay for a function, even though you get to the same answer of $2.89. Okay, so that's one example. That's one example for a function. We're going to look at this other example, let me change colors a little bit. So from the types of fruits to their colors. Okay, so from the types of fruit, and again, it's a relation relating to things, so the types of fruits, two, I think in that two word there, it's going to divide us between our two different things relating. So fruits to their color. So a couple of fruit that I could have, I could have apples, I could have pears, I could have strawberries, straw, oh, there's supposed to be an R in there, strawberries. That's enough, I think. About three different examples of different types of fruit. Okay, now here's the thing though, is that apples, if you go to the store, apples, they can be red, they can be yellow, and they can also be green. This causes a little bit of a problem. Apples can be red, they can be also yellow, they can also be green. Okay, now this is actually a very, very bad thing. Usually pears are usually going to be yellow, and strawberries are usually going to be red. So we'll go up here with them. Okay, now this right here, that's what causes our problem. Again, for a function for every input, there is a unique output. So whenever I put apples in, for it to be a function, it only should be one result. But in this case, apples, the relation of the fruit to their color, apples can be red, or they can be yellow, or they can be green. Apples can be all sorts of different colors. You can make the argument for pears also, pears can be yellow, and maybe a little bit green depending, depending on where their ripeness is. Strawberries, on the other hand, I guess when they're maturing, they're white and a little bit green, and then once they fully mature into a full fruit, then they turn red. But anyway, you get the idea that apples, they can be a bunch of different colors. Apples can be red, apples can be yellow, apples can be green, there's no set result, there's no set answer on what colors the apple is going to be. Okay, so this is an example of something that is not a function, not a function. Okay, not a function. And I know these are a couple of examples that don't really deal with numbers, but again, you can kind of see the similarity with numbers, especially with the example that we did over here, with the stuff that you see at the grocery store, and then the numbers of the prices on a certain date. So you can kind of see the connection with numbers there. Okay, that is determining whether a relation is a function, a couple of real-life examples of real-life relations, relations in real-life or actual functions. And again, as a reminder, a function, just got to remember, for every input there is a unique output. I also like to say it as functions, whenever you plug something in, you only get one answer. Whenever you, again, whenever you buy the chips on this certain date, they are only going to be $4.50. That is a function. On the other hand, apples, they can be red, they can be yellow, they can be green. There's lots of different colors for your apples. That makes it not a function. Those are the differences between the two. That is determining whether a relation is a function. I hope this video was helpful to you.


So now we can move on to how this actually works in our atmosphere. Now to start with, again, we've got the ground, the sky, and a thermometer. I have actually set the greenhouse gas concentration down to zero to start with. And if I play, I see very much the same sort of simulation as what I saw when I had no glass. All the infrared photons escape back out into space. Now you'll notice the temperature changes a little bit depending on how much heats and there's a little bit of fluctuation in there. But it's staying a nice minus two minus three degrees Fahrenheit, not very warm. As I increase the amount of greenhouse gas, you'll start to see that some of the infrared photons are being directed back down rather than being able to escape. And again, some of them do escape outwards. So that has a warming effect on the ground. If I continue to increase the amount of greenhouse gases, more and more of the infrared photons end up being directed back down to the ground, causing the ground to warm up. As I increase even further, we see that a large amount of the infrared photons are being directed back down to the ground. So the ground is being heated by the initial visible light from the sun and then reheated by all of the infrared photons that are being redirected back down to the ground. And it causes the temperature to increase significantly. If I take it all the way up to the maximum that the simulation allows, some infrared photons still get out. But for the most part, they're being bounced back down to the ground. The ground is heating up and it gets very hot. Now this is actually a representation of what happens on Venus where we have a heavy carbon dioxide saturated atmosphere and the ground temperature is significantly hotter than you would expect for the planet for the distance it is from the sun. Luckily our planet's not got quite that much carbon dioxide. If we go to today's values, it's a more moderate range. But we want to make sure that we don't continue to increase the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. If we're able to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases, then slowly over time we would expect the temperature to be able to cool off a little bit.


The production of money in a free society is a matter of free association. Everybody from the miners to the owners of the mines to the minters and up to the customers who buy the minted coins, all of them benefit from the production of money. None of them violates the property rights of anybody else because everybody is free to enter the mining and minting business and nobody is obliged to buy the product. Things are completely different once we turn to money production in interventionist regimes which have prevailed in the west for the better part of the past 150 years. Here we need to mention in particular two institutional forms of monetary interventionism fraudulent fractional reserve banking and fiat money. The common characteristic of both these institutions is that they violate the principle of free association. They enable the producers of paper money and of money titles to expand their production through the violation of other people's property rights. Banking is fraudulent whenever bankers sell uncovered or only partially covered money substitutes that they present as fully covered titles for money. These bankers sell more money substitutes than they could have sold if they had taken care to keep a 100% reserve for each substitute they issued. The producer of fiat money, in our days typically paper money, sells a product that cannot withstand the competition of free market monies such as gold and silver coins and which the market participants only use because the use of all other monies is severely restricted or even outlawed. The most eloquent illustration of this fact is that paper money in all countries has been produced through legal tender laws. Paper money is inherently fiat money. It cannot thrive but when it is imposed by the state. In both cases the production of money is excessive because it is no longer constrained by the informed and voluntary association of the buying public. On a free market paper money could not sustain the competition of the far superior metal monies. The production of any quantity of paper money is therefore excessive by the standards of a free society. Unfortunately fractional reserve banking produces excessive quantities of money substitutes at any rate in those cases in which the customers are not informed that they are offered fractional reserve bank deposits rather than genuine money titles. This excessive production of money and money titles is inflation by the Rothbardian definition which we have adapted in the present study to the case of paper money. Inflation is an unjustifiable redistribution of income in favor of those who receive the new money and money titles first and to the detriment of those who receive them last. In practice the redistribution always works out in favor of the fiat money producers themselves whom we misleadingly call central banks and of their partners in the banking sector and at the stock exchange. And of course inflation works out to the advantage of governments and their closest allies in the business world. Inflation is the vehicle through which these individuals and groups enrich themselves unjustifiably at the expense of the citizenry at large. If there is any truth to the socialist caricature of capitalism an economic system that exploits the poor to the benefit of the rich then this caricature holds true for a capitalist system strangulated by inflation. The relentless influx of paper money makes the wealthy and powerful richer and more powerful than they would be if they depended exclusively on the voluntary support of their fellow citizens. And because it shields the political and economic establishment of the country from the competition emanating from the rest of society inflation puts a break on social mobility.  The economist Joseph Schumpeter once presented inflation as the harbinger of innovation. As he had it inflationary issues of banknotes would serve to finance upstart entrepreneurs who had great ideas but lacked capital. Now even if we abstract from the questionable ethical character of this proposal which boils down to subsidizing any self-appointed innovator at the involuntary expense of all other members of society we must say that in light of practical experience Schumpeter's scheme is wishful thinking. Credit expansion financed through printing money is in practice the very opposite of a way to combat the economic establishment. It is the preferred means of survival for an establishment that cannot or can no longer sustain the competition of its competitors. It would not be uncharitable to characterize inflation as a large-scale rip-off in favor of the politically well-connected few and to the detriment of the politically destitute masses. It always goes hand in hand with the concentration of political power in the hands of those who are privileged to own a banking license and of those who control the production of the monopoly paper money. It promotes endless debts, puts society at the mercy of monetary authorities such as central banks entails moral corruption of society.