Hey there friends, thanks for checking in. Today we're looking at Ruger's newest release. It's a PC charger chambered in nine millimeter. Now we're used to the PC charger and 22 long rifle. This one's new, it's chambered in nine millimeter and it's being distributed out to your local gun stores right now. And the MSRP on this is 799. Now you can see that I have a Glock Mag and one of the nice things about this in the PC9 Carbine is that it comes installed with this mag weld that accepts the Ruger mags, the Security 9 and the SR9 mags, but they also offer an additional insert that I already have installed that will accept any nine millimeter Glock Mag and that's a nice feature. And I changed that out, it couldn't be easier. And now it will accept the larger cap Glock Mag that I very much appreciate. But check that out. This is the takedown model and it kinda looks like a mini-me for the PC9 Carbine. The overall length of this is 16 and a half inches and the barrel length is six and a half inches. And I already mentioned it's a takedown model. I already have the bolt locked back but let's go ahead and show that, pull the bolt handle back in this lever here and just push that in. That will go ahead and lock it up and then over here that button there just push forward, twist and off comes the forend. It's an aluminum M lock handguard. I already mentioned six and a half inch barrel and a hand stop there, which is nice. Keeps your hand away from the barrel when shooting. So a nice safety feature and then to put it back together just like that and it's all set. Regular A2 grip has 1913 rail there for a brace. I'm gonna show that in a bit. Of course, 1913 rail there for flip up sights or an optic. Now the optic that I chose is a Vortex Spark AR. I'm very happy with it. I took it to the range at first as a function test but then took it to check out the brace and enjoy it. And I sure did. Right out of the case it just shot dead nuts and I couldn't be happier with it. It has a cross bolt safety right there. The mag release right here and the charging handle can be switched off to the other side making this fully ambidextrous as well as the magazine release. You can see it's got the same cut out. You can switch that over. I already mentioned took it to the range. Let's show some of that footage. We'll come back and talk more about it. Here is an SB Tactical FS 1913 brace. What I like about this setup is that when it is folded the gun can be fired as if the brace wasn't even there. And I was fine with that when I initially went out. I was actually quite surprised because you'd think holding the gun like this and firing that the dot would be all over the place but it really wasn't. I was on target right away. I credit the smooth shooting of this as well as the Vortex Spark which I really enjoyed. You can see it does have the brightness settings there. Extremely clear glass and a nice dot to put you on target. But to use the brace, all you have to do is push it out. And there you go. Nice option, I appreciate the pick rail right there to add the brace. Now to fold it back, all you have to do is pull up on the brace. Let's see if I can do that one hand, there you go. And then it just folds in just like that. Nice for storage, nice for toting around or just keeping it like that until you're ready to use it. Overall, I have to say, Ruger hit it out of the park with the PC charger. The options that they offer with the brace, the availability to change out the insert to add Glock Mags is a nice touch or just use the Ruger Mags, that's the shooter's choice. And the rail there to use flip up sights or to add a dot. I like options and they certainly have that with this PC charger. It's a nice shooting gun. The overall ergos are very nice and I was certainly impressed at the range. I have a lot of plans with this in the future and I certainly look forward to that. But those looking for an outstanding home defense firearm, a plinker at the range or even small game hunting, check out this PC charger, a nine millimeter. It's new from Ruger. It's gonna be blasted out all over social media shortly. And I think you guys are really going to dig it. If you like videos like this, please subscribe and share. I always appreciate thumbs up button. Thanks for watching and you guys be safe.


When one hears the jana-gana-manha, which Indian soul will not feel a deep sense of pride? When the words vande matram are uttered, which Indian heart will not be filled with devotion for the motherland? Wherever an Indian may reside, in whichever part of the world he may be, seeing the saffron white and green of a tricolor will make the heart brim over with emotions. This is true for all 125 crore Indians and equally true for the 2 crore 80 lakh Indians settled abroad. For the love for one's motherland depends on neither a passport nor a visa. A small memory is all that it takes to open up the floodgates, thoughts of the loved ones back home and of those familiar sights, smells and sounds. As a proud messenger of warmth and fond memories from India, Prime Minister Shree Narendra Modi journeyed across the seas with but one aim. And that was to bolster the pride and prestige of both India and Indians across the world. The world assumed that the Prime Minister's visit would consist of a few meetings with top leaders and would appear as nothing more than a small quickly forgotten item tucked away in some corner of the newspaper. But what actually happened was unprecedented. The Prime Minister was thronged by huge crowds wherever he visited. The foreigners witnessing these large gatherings must have wondered if it was an Indian carnival that was being celebrated. Such was the impact of Prime Minister's visit. He brought new life to existing ones so they can become stronger and deeper. No stone was left unturned to showcase India's strength and capabilities to the whole world. The Prime Minister visited powerful economies of the world like USA, Canada, UK, Russia, France, Germany, Japan and China. There were agreements signed on many important issues such as development, transport, energy and security To drive foreign investment and technology towards the development of India, the Make in India initiative was put into place. From meeting new age technology leaders at the Facebook headquarters to engaging with nuclear scientists at international summits he would simply make a stopover at places like the Indian residential campus in Dubai or stop to pose for selfies with the proud Indian fans. Perhaps never before in the history of modern India has a Prime Minister reached out to non-resident Indians in this manner nor has brought India so close to them. For the first time ever has the top leadership of the nation formed such a direct connection with the expatriate Indian diaspora. It was 33 years since an Indian Prime Minister visited Fiji and the first time since a visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Mongolia. You are the heartbeat between two great nations, two vibrant democracies, two wonderful people. But more had to be done after this to closely connect the Indian diaspora to India. The first decision was to involve them more closely in the process of policy formulation. This led to the formation of the Prabhasi Bhartiya Kendra which was inaugurated by the Prime Minister on the 2nd of October 2016. Brainstorming sessions with an active participation of NRIs are being conducted touching upon number of areas, the contribution of NRIs to social and economic developmental efforts, better services in trade and commerce, encouraging tourism, development of medical tourism in India, transfer of knowledge, encouragement of innovation, role of non-resident Indian community organizations, problems faced by Indian students studying abroad and ones faced by children of non-residents studying in India, connecting better with non-resident Indians through social media and the problem of overseas contract labour especially in ECR nations. A unique Prabhasi Bhartiya museum has been built in the Prabhasi Bhartiya Kendra and the special arrangements for a comfortable stay have been made for the NRIs visiting the event. But beyond the pride and self-respect of Indians abroad lies the matter of their security and this avenue is being diligently pursued by the Minister of External Affairs, Sushma Swaraj with great sensitivity. Today, Indians living abroad have begun to feel that someone is looking out for them back in India. And the King of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdul Rajeeb, gave his officials the order to solve this problem within two days. We will give the exit visa only. We will give India to the Indians with our own wishes. I would also like to thank the Prime Minister because this work could have been possible and the connection he made with India, Saudi Arabia and his personality could have been possible. Whenever Indians settled abroad have faced trouble or threatening situations or have been trapped in dangerous places, the foreign ministry has swung into mission mode to organize their rescue under the direct supervision of Madam Swaraj. So whether it has been Indians trapped in the Yemen crisis or a girl called Geeta trapped for years in Pakistan, the Indian nurses in the war zone in Iraq or the Indian civilians caught in the civil war in South Sudan, they were never forgotten by their country. They have all been rescued. In today's world, a single tweet solves the toughest of problems efficiently and quickly. Here are a few instances.  She could not even communicate her grief as she was deaf and mute. Geeta rescued from Pakistan. My mistake was that I was small, I did not understand and I made a mistake that I went to a wrong place. My parents used to come here the most, they used to make me cry again and again. With the help of the media, I wanted to tell everyone. Then when Sushma Swaraj Ji saw this news in India through this media and I kept praying this way, then I came to know that from the hard work of the Indian government, Sushma Swaraj Ji tried to call me back to India when I came back from the plane. I was very happy. Then I went to Indore. I was very happy to see all the children. I thank the respected Modi Ji very much. India is progressing so fast in this way and it is becoming famous in the world. I thank him very much. I pray to God that you will be successful. Hail India! This is Sushil Kapoor. He joined a shipping company in Dubai but ended up at a place where he thought he could never return. Sushil Kapoor rescued from Iranian jail. We had to buy diesel from Oman and we had to sell that diesel in Dubai. So this procedure was going on for 7-8 days. There is a ship coming along side our ship. People are on board. They started killing me first. They handcuffed me. They tied my legs.  Then we took them to Iran. We took them to the police station. Then we found out that we were punished. We have been punished for 2 years. We have been fined for 2.9 US million. That means 19 crores. And we have been punished for 15 years. Sushma ma'am found out that this is happening. Ma'am made me believe that I will try my best to bring Sushil back. The foreign minister, Mr. Zarif, came to India.  His punishment is over. On 11th October, someone came to me from the jail in Peshachan. He told me that Sushil is free tomorrow. And on 14th October, I took him to India. The Indian government has done a lot. Six year old Sonu, an innocent and playful child who was abducted from New Delhi and sent to Bangladesh. A victim of torture. Sonu, rescued from Bangladesh. Sonu, when he was informed that he is going home, he took him to his mother's house. He stayed at home for a month. I told him to take him to my mother.  I am your mother. Sonu, when he was informed that he is going home, he took him to Bangladesh. Sonu, when he was informed that he is going home, he got very happy. After 6 years, I was very happy to meet my brother, mother and father. I want to thank my father and my sister-in-law. I also want to thank my sister-in-law. I also want to thank Jamal. I also want to thank the foreign ministry. Similarly, Naushad Alam thought he had lost everything in Saudi Arabia. His brother, his loved one, runs his life in liberty. Naushad Alam, rescued from Saudi Arabia. A 40-year-old man, who was an Indian, took him to the jail and locked him up. He was put in the jail because of what he was told. But we don't know anything. After that, he was kept for a year and 15 days. We heard that Mrs. Susma Suraj is calling us back to her homeland. Before this, we got the joy of an Eid. We were very happy. We were so happy that we were all married. We met each other in the airport, and we cried so much with our parents, brothers and relatives. We felt that we had a new life. We thought, let's do something about the public or the public. Computer engineer Faheem Ahmad went to build a future in Maldives. But to his shock, he was implicated on suspicion of drug smuggling at the Maldives airport as soon as he landed. Faheem Ahmad, rescued from Maldives. After reaching Maldives, I was arrested at the airport. The people who had sent me there had trapped me in a drug case. And I was put in jail. After the drug smuggling case, I endured a lot. For almost 4.5 months, I have been in jail. I had left the hope of coming back. I cried a lot. I cried a lot. Because in those 4.5 months, I had seen everything that a common person doesn't see in his whole life. After that, when I got the chance, I called my family. They contacted our MP, Dr. Kirit Sumayya. They went to their office. They took this case to Mrs. Sushma Sauraj. Because of the hard work of Mrs. Sushma Sauraj, our country, our country, our country, our country, our home, our family and our children. Sir, when I got on the airport, I cried a lot. I can't describe that happiness in words. I, my family, Dr. Kirit Sumayya and Mrs. Sushma Sauraj will be grateful. Vikram Singh from a small village in India also went through a similar experience. He landed in Malaysia but after some months he began to feel that he would never see his home again. Vikram Singh, rescued from Malaysia. He told Mrs. Sushma Sauraj about all these stories. She told him about the future. He told me that if the foreign government could bring me back, I would be happy to see tears. And I thank him with all my heart that he did a great job for me. When a mother goes out in search of her daughter's father, she does so just to complete her family. Gurpreet Kaur too went to Germany to seek her child's father with this very dream. Instead, both mother and child were detained and lost all hope of seeing their country again. Gurpreet Kaur, rescued from German refugee camp. I didn't find anyone there. I didn't think that I would be able to go back from here. I thought that my whole life I would have to go through this pain. Whatever happened with me, but if something had happened with my daughter, maybe I would never forgive myself. When I went to Germany, my dream was that my whole family would meet and my child would get her father. I would get my husband. But I didn't have a complete dream. When I got my first tweet of Mr. Gurpreet Kaur, then I thought that there was no end to happiness. When I first spoke to Mr. Shushma, it was that a mother held her child by her hand and said that she was crossing the river. I was so happy that I was only watching every two minutes of my time. I couldn't stop my tears of joy. I was just thinking that I should quickly meet Mr. Shushma and hold his feet so that you can save my life. In the past two years, four major evacuations have been pulled off from international trouble spots. Over 7,000 were rescued from Iraq. Over 3,000 from Libya. 1,000 from Ukraine. And over 4,000 from Yemen, along with Indians, around 2,000 foreign nationals were also evacuated to safety. Over 150 Indian nationals were brought back safely home from South Sudan as well. The Yemen and South Sudan rescue efforts were personally led by Minister of State, External Affairs, General V.K. Singh. And in spite of coming under artillery fire, he helped to bring the Indians trapped in Yemen safely home. In the aircraft, because I had a habit of going and talking to people, I saw this little baby and I said, how old is the baby? And she said, five days. I was actually aghast. Of course, we learned later that I think it was a premature child. When we got down, the baby was suffering from severe jaundice. We got the baby put into the incubator and ultimately, next day, with the incubator, she flew back to India with the child. And in this way, with the honour, safety and welfare of the Pravasi Indian kept sacrosanct. In a period of just two years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi entirely visited 44 nations. External affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, Minister of State General V.K. Singh and newly appointed Minister of State M.J. Akbar established new relations with the NRI communities abroad. Wherever they went, the dormant aspirations of India were awakened. The world looked at India in a new light and Pravasi Indians looked at India with greater esteem. Previously, non-resident Indians were only guests or tourists. Now, they have re-emerged as a partner on a mission to create a more developed India. Henceforth, the Pravasi India Divas will be organised biannually. Mm. And yes, the story doesn't end here. There are people who return home after months and years of toil and meet their families in a happy reunion. The Pravasi Bharti Divas transforms into a happy festival. Here mothers reunite with their children again. Couples come together once again. If the bond of brotherhood is reaffirmed, so do aging parents joyfully bask in the presence of their loved ones. One unifying bond running through a medley of hearts and a sea of emotions of a country called India. The honour and self-respect of non-resident Indians. The security of non-resident Indians. The contribution of non-resident Indians to India. With these three pillars for the first time in history, the government of India will be connecting directly with 2.8 crore non-resident Indians. Come! Today, on Pravasi Bharti Divas, let us celebrate the occasion with a sense of deep pride and an exuberant joy. Jai Hind!


United States. Thank you. Thank you very much. Please be seated. As Henry VIII said to each of his six wives, I won't keep you long. It's wonderful to be here with such successful people, and I know that success in business doesn't come easy. I know the story. A tourist in New York went up to Louis Armstrong and said, I can't wait to hear your performance tonight. I'm on my way to get the tickets right now. And he said, by the way, how do I get to Carnegie Hall? And Louis said, just practice, baby. But it is an honor to speak to the American Business Conference and organization made up of America's most dynamic leaders on our nation's path to economic growth. And I want to take a moment right here at the outset to acknowledge all that you've done to give our administration encouragement and support. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention in particular your support of our campaign to help prepare America for the 21st century, including your strong anti-protectionist stand. You've joined us in saying that in the century ahead, America's growth, America's jobs, and the standard of living for every American family will depend on having a strong American economy in the strong. And, well, that's just good plain common sense, I think. And that's why I'm so glad that you're here. Since I came to Washington, I've found loads of people who have all the answers, but not too many who remember the questions. That's part of common sense. And a lot of people seem to check theirs at the district line. So as I say, I'm glad you're here. Now in preparing for the 21st century, nothing is more important than getting our house in order. And I'm delighted to be able to report to you that despite the momentum built up by the 50-year-old spending juggernaut, we've made dramatic headway toward getting government spending under control. For the first time in more than a decade, the federal government is actually projected to spend less this fiscal year in real terms than the year before. And I think you'll agree that's no small accomplishment. On getting control of spending, we still have a long way to go, though. But in so many areas, we've come a long way, too. In the last six years, we've wrestled inflation to the ground, cut the prime interest rate in half, and created more than 13 million new jobs since November of 1982. But this morning I signed something, a report that I have to sign every year to go up to the Congress. And I think that I really should have thrown this away and brought the report over here, read it to you. Because it was a report on what we, over these six years, have been doing with regard to improved management. And just a couple of the figures in that report I think would show what it contains. We've eliminated 30,000 pages of federal regulations. And we have reduced the estimated time that all of you out in the public there would have to spend on government paperwork by 600 million man-hours a year. It goes on that way all the way through, and with literally billions of dollars that have been reduced, simply by putting into practice at the government level the things that you do every day in business. We found we were still paying people with cardboard checks. We changed that, but a lot of many more important things are being done, and we're still at it. We've known a revolution of hope and opportunity that some of our European allies have come to call the American miracle. In fact, they've said it to my face in some of the economic summits. But continuation of these achievements and this progress is imperiled at this very moment. By some in the Congress. One thread is the danger of so-called protectionist legislation. I say so-called because in reality it's destructionist. Today the importance of free trade is all but universally accepted as a fundamental of economic thought. So too it is all but universally understood that our own nation earns billions of dollars in foreign markets and has millions of jobs tied to export. We believe that America must not hide from the future but meet it as we always have met our challenges with pride and strength. We want to make America number one in the world economy of the next century and that isn't an easy or simple job. It'll touch many facets of our society. It involves the education of our children, the training of our workers, the management of our businesses, the investment in research and development by our industries and the economic policies of our government. The steps we've proposed in these areas will guarantee that America will still be number one in the year 2000. We're eager to work with those in Congress who share our goal of preparing America for the century ahead. We've found a new receptiveness by certain members of Congress for our approach. About a month ago I said it was time for all of us to join together in looking to the new world marketplace not as a source of fear and uncertainty but in the way that Americans have always looked at challenges as a great opportunity. Another frontier for the American spirit as America's next great adventure. One plan, well I plan beginning this week to travel around the country meeting America in all walks of life. And we'll be working to find common sense answers to the challenge. Every once in a while it's good for Washington not to always be talking about the answers but going out to the people and asking the questions. To America's business the challenge will be to make products more efficiently, to embrace new ideas, better methods of management and new technologies and to make the proudest, most desirable label on more and more products and services around the world made in America. Just think how happy that'll make Bob hope. To America's workers the challenge is to be prepared for the new jobs and new skills of the future and to prove in the quality of their work that the pride is indeed back. And to us all the challenge is to show the same spirit of enterprise and adventure the same can-do spirit that built our country and made it great. You know I've always heard the story about us Brash Americans when we began to be tourists started to become tourists again and some of the Americans would go back to their source in Europe on tours and the story of the elderly couple there that were Mount Vesuvius and the guide was telling them the amount of heat that was expelled from the volcano and how much it was doing and all of this and the old boy turned to his wife and said hell we got a volunteer fire department at home put that thing out in 15 minutes. You've you may have seen the TV commercials supposedly set a few years hence the show a ragged looking man in an empty room he talks about how America lost its prosperity because of foreign competition the message is that we need to build trade walls but of course the truth is just the opposite in 1930 we tried that other way major new tariffs three years later the unemployment rate stood at 25% America's periods of greatest prosperity of course have always been periods of growing trade and that's why there is developing a great bipartisan consensus that the answer to our trade problems is more trade House Speaker Jim Wright said recently the solution lies in opening markets for American goods not enclosing our markets to foreign goods it's very simple while keeping our own market open we will not sit idly by when others close theirs to our products subsidize their exports or fail to trade fairly and in these last six years I'm proud to say that we've taken the strongest actions in American history against unfair trade practices abroad and we're going to keep on until we've got a completely fair and level trading area recently we've asked Congress to strengthen the guarantees that we give patents copyrights and trade secrets so America's intellectual property will be clearly staked out with a sign that reads no trespassing and I've also asked Congress for authority to negotiate a new round of trade agreements to bring down the barriers to world trade all around the world we must help those when the changing economy is displaced but we must also never forget that what's at stake here is America's future for ourselves, our children, their children on into the next century and this brings me to the second great danger Congress is posing a danger that has to do with the federal budget the budget deficit is a major threat to our national competitiveness yet last week Congress passed a budget busting highway bill and it is really a lemon with a sticker price of $88 billion loaded with every option in the book and it has just sputtered down Pennsylvania Avenue while you were sitting in here and is parked over at the White House and before the day is over I think I will have it towed back and dropped at Congress door with a note on it that says stop the spending spree get to work and the message can't get there too soon even before Congress has drawn up their budget some there are saying that they want to back away from our commitment to Graham Rudman Hollings some are even saying they want to raise taxes again on the American people well I'm sorry we're not going to let that happen the American people worked long and hard to cut tax rates and win tax reform and they put their trust in their elected representatives and were promised by those representatives that they would be given the long overdue tax relief they so truly deserve we're not going to break faith with the American people tax reform will go ahead as scheduled as I've been saying all along my pledge to veto any tax rate increase remains rock solid there'll be no tax rate increase in the 100th Congress it's time Congress cut the federal budget and left the family budget alone what I've been saying today all adds up to this the best way to protect our economic achievements is to institutionalize the revolution that we launched when we came here six years ago and believe me, I intend to do just that after all I've always been sort of partial to a big finish should have a good third act curtain but I'm going to do something now that isn't in the schedule hope everybody will forgive me I just can't resist with all of you here I know I've only got just a few minutes and then a cabinet meeting waiting over there but just at least for one or two some of you, there must have been times in these last six years when you said, boy, if I had a chance I'd like to ask him well, go ahead anybody got a question they'd like to ask? caught you by surprise? I'm a 92-year-old mother that says she supports you 100% now you see, that's a question I like thank, you please give her my regards and thank her very much yes I need all the help I can get from people like yourselves and from the people themselves there are 43 governors and I was one of them in this state or in this nation that have the line item veto almost all of those states are practically or maybe all of them have also in their constitutions a balanced budget amendment as president or as governor I vetoed in that manner 943 times and the vetoes were never overridden once by the same people who had sent the budget to me having voted to pass it yet the congress just digs in its heels and seems to think that would be giving a president some kind of power that he shouldn't have but I claim it is that it's the basic answer to getting control once and for all over this built-in deficit spending and it is built into our very structure we've been doing it now for more than half a century as I've said so often it isn't necessary to make the congress see the light make them feel the heat so get busy president how can we improve the quality of our education especially the secondary education in the United States well we've been studying that and at the high school level well and at the elementary level there has been a great improvement since that commission of ours the commission on excellence in education came out with its report and our secretary of education did a great job of getting this throughout the country there are 37 states already that have increased the requirements for high school graduation and many of them have lengthened the school year there's no question but that we we drifted into a relapse in what had been a great educational system here and I think it's going to be up to all of us and that doesn't mean the federal government for the 7% of education that we fund trying to get 70% of control the control of education belongs right back there in the community with the parents where they can raise cane what's going on as governor every year I used to meet with a group of exchange students foreign students that would come here and they'd all come to the governor's office and I always had one question I'd ask them and I always got the same answer I'd say by the way now that you've been going to school almost a year here in our schools how do our schools compare and work with your own at home and there'd be a pause and they'd begin to look at each other and then they'd start giggling and then there'd be a belly laugh out of all of them our education was just that much easier than what they were subjected to in their countries and we're getting back now to more work but I think even up at our college and high school level when I found out that in one of our great universities and some students there in their third year at the university didn't know which side Hitler had been on in World War II I decided something's lacking in our history education but this has got to be the end now I have President, what is the possibility of your inducing speaker right and Senator Byrd to come together with you and work diligently on a good budget bill? Well we've sent ours up and they have proposed a kind of a summit meeting but without coming up with a budget of their own and very frankly I have said to them look you don't like the budget I sent up you make out a budget then let's sit down and talk about the two budgets well they've never sent us one they just want to talk about ours well I know I've got to quit and thank you all, God bless you all Mr. President it gives me great pleasure to present you a copy of the American Business Conference's newest study the challenge of global competitiveness views of America's high growth companies I think you'll find the book interesting reading for two reasons first it describes the extraordinary success ABC companies have enjoyed in international markets contrary to the naysayers this book demonstrates that American firms can compete abroad and that they can do so by delivering products and services of the highest quality and the greatest value ABC firms over the past five years have seen their international revenues grow by 230% and their record of job creation on an annual basis has been 14% a year entrepreneur is alive and well in the United States and secondly the chief executive officers who contributed to this book agree with you the protectionist initiatives will prove of little value in the long run in terms of international competition they believe as you do that protectionism is a futile and ultimately counterproductive policy that is absolutely bound to spark retaliation retaliation that will injure American companies like those of the ABC that have been successful in penetrating foreign markets we at the American Business Conference believe that these are your goals as well Mr. President and you can be assured of our continuing and our enthusiastic support thank you very much


Can you can ask members who are leaving the chamber to please do so quickly and quietly. The next item of business, final item, is a members of business debate on motion <IP_ADDRESS> in the name of Alexander Burnett, on ensuring a just transition for rural communities. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the question speak buttons and I would call on Alexander Burnett to open the debate around 7 minutes please. I'm thinking members for their support in bringing that motion to debate. All across Scotland, communities face being under siege by wind farm developments despite strong opposition to them. I've been in touch with groups such as Nafer, Save Our Hills Moffitt and Save Straight In for Scotland, and I'm delighted to welcome representatives in the gallery today. 7 o'r tyfnidwyr ysgolwyr yn ysgolwyr yn cyflawniaeth bwysig, sef hynny'n ddweud ddweud 3,400 turbine sy'n ddweud yn Sgolwyr wedi'i gwneud yn 2030. Mae'r ddweud yn ei ddweud o'r tyfnidwyr yn ysgolwyr yn ddweud yn 2025 ac 2030. Ond yn ddweud, mae'r tyfnidwyr ysgolwyr yn gweithio ddweud yn ei ddweud, os ydych chi, mae'r tyfnidwyr yn ddweud 3,500 turbine sy'n gweithio ddweud yn ddweud, i wneud chi weithio y byddai gwahanol. Felly, iawn y maen nhw'n cael eu cyfathraddau lle yn gyfreidol a'r cwmddagğau cyfathraddau oherwydd nywethaf. Mae'n meddwl that the views of communities affected are heard and properly considered. Ac rwy'n medden nhw hwnnw'n modol o'r regisdoedd, ac weithgau ond cyfnodd yn ddisgytigaf, mae'r ddweudio'r 12 kW farm yn wedi'i gweithio'r ddegade agor, o'r tynnu yn gweithio'r ddweudio mewn cyffordd o'r holl o'r cyfnodd ar y yrhaf yw, o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl o'r holl. Ond yw'r ffordd mewn arlawn ac rwy'n credu i'n cael ei gael i gael i'r holl o'r holl. Felly, cyntaf o llwyddiant i gwrsau Llyfrgellfyniadol yn y Llyfrgellfyniadol yw'r gwaith yn ynnw'n ei ddweud. Felly, mae'n bwysig eu dyfodol, ac mae'n bach yn arddangos i'ch parau arall y gwylltau. Felly, mae'n bach yn cyfrifiadu bwysig o'r gwrsau aethau'r adonai'n gweithio'n gwylltau. Rydyn ni'n gweld gynghwmwyno'n gwneud yw ein ffarniadau, yw eu ddweud o'r rhan i'r rhan o'r cyfrifiadau, ac mae'n gweithio â'r minister, ond rydyn ni'n gweithio â'r cymdeithasol. Rydyn ni'n gweithio â'r minister Richard Lochhead, ond rydyn ni'n gweithio â'r cymdeithasol. Ond mae'n gweithio â Clashen-Darrick a'r Creg Watch yng Nghymru. Rydyn ni'n gweithio â'r 54 turbyns, ac mae'n gweithio â 146 turbyns yn unrhyw o'r 10 km. Felly, rydyn ni'n gweithio â'r minister o'r cymdeithasol, if he listens to the community or whether he will just ignore his constituents? The hill of fare proposal is for 16 turbyns, some 200m tall, on a hill which is itself 300m above the landscape. If this receives approval it will be the first on Royalty side, and will set a precedent that will open the floodgates to more industrial size turbines. Destroying the landscape, protected in parts ac yn ei ddweud y rhan o'r cymdeithas i'r cymdeithas. Y ddweud ysgrifennid gyda'r First Minister yma, mewn ddod o'r ysgolfaeth a'r 8 cymdeithas cymdeithas, mae'n ddod o'r 71% o'r rhan o'r cymdeithas, i'r cymdeithas i'r cymdeithas, ac mae'n ddod o'r cymdeithas i'r cymdeithas, a'i ddod o'r cymdeithas i'r cymdeithas i'r cymdeithas.  Thank you, Mr Burnett. Unrhyw i gradd i ddef learnsig tai, gan gwybod eich mae'r dod yn Cymru絵determ Government Un fifteen. I call John Swinney on to be followed by Oliver Golden disappointment. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I congratulate Alexander Burnett on securing this debate, which is an important debate to give voice to the views of people in rural Scotland on the important role they have to play, as we all have to play in the transition to net zero, because I think all of us and any of us experiencing what we've experienced in the last few weeks alone are living through the visual manifestation of the climate crisis that we face and the significant changes in climate that are being experienced. One of the questions at the heart of this debate, and one of the Conservative members earlier on today, Liam Kerr, was raising issues about water scarcity. I can hardly believe that we're having a discussion about water scarcity in June, when normally these issues are issues that we confront much later in the summer period. Another illustration of the impact of the climate crisis all begs the question, are we serious about tackling these issues? We have to be serious about tackling the climate crisis, and renewable energy, as Alexander Burnett has acknowledged, has a role to play in that question in relation to its role as part of a mix of energy sources. There are a number of calls that Mr Burnett makes in his motion that are reasonable calls. I think that the points about the uplifting of community benefit contribution rates are valid points that should be advanced, and the Government should consider those issues. We must maintain an up-to-date analysis of any societal impacts of renewable energy and the points on the noise from night-time activity. It is important that we reflect and consider those and the decision-making process. Those are all completely reasonable points, but we also have to recognise the necessity of ensuring that we have enough steps being taken to tackle the severity and the gravity of the climate crisis that we face. Along with offshore wind and hydro schemes and various other measures, the investment in solar energy that we are also seeing are all part of that mix in the transition that we have to make. The last point that I want to make relates to the point that Mr Burnett makes in his motion, where he criticises the energy consensuit in Edinburgh. With the greatest respect, I do not think that the wording of that is particularly generous or charitable, because I do not think that it is right to criticise public officials who are simply interpreting the law as the law is made by this institution. The decisions on energy consens are taken, not in some random process by civil servants, but by reference to the legitimate points that Mr Burnett raised about the preservation of the natural environment. I will do in a moment about historical sites of significance and a variety of other considerations that Parliament lays down has to be looked at in that process. However, to build public confidence, those decisions are taken by a reference to statute and evidence that is then published in marshaled information by the consent unit. Of course, I give way to Mr Burnett. Thank you, Mr Burnett, for taking that intervention. I would not like to criticise the officials at the energy consens unit, because the work that they are doing is set out by the politicians and by this place. Their remit to be able to do stuff is stems from here. However, does Mr Swinney agree that not having a single elected representative has any say in such developments is wrong? I think that that is a characterisation of the process that I would not recognise, because politicians are involved in setting the framework within which those decisions are taken. That is the proper role for politicians to say what standards should we follow and then for decisions to be taken in accordance with that framework. Of course, if you would allow me to make this last point, if people are dissatisfied—if a local authority was dissatisfied with a decision that has been taken—the local authority, as with any decision of the Scottish Government, is free to challenge that decision in the process of law. That option is available if there has been an error in the application of the law. That is the crucial point that we have to consider. I do not want that issue to separate me from recognising that there are important calls in that motion that I hope that the Government will respond to constructively, because communities that are making the sacrifice to be part of their transition must be able to share in the benefits as many communities in my constituency have shared in the benefits of wind farms that have been approved in our locality and which contribute to enhancing the health and wellbeing of the locality that I have the privilege to represent. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to have the opportunity to voice the frustrations of my constituents tonight. I would like to thank Alexander Burnett for securing this much needed debate. The issue speaks to the wider contempt in which rural communities are held by this Government and, more specifically, the lack of voice they have in the planning system—a system that often feels like a sham stacked in favour of the developers. Too often we see the views and decisions of local authorities discounted and overturned. Community councils and local people saying no, yet those projects are still imposed. Objectors are treated like second-class citizens whose views count for less than that of the Government or developers. That has certainly been my own experience with developers seeking to block my participation in inquiry sessions, asserting that because I am not a landscape expert, the views that I express on behalf of my constituents do not matter, and developers arguing that community concerns are better lumped together into less formal hearing sessions, if recognised at all. It is a system where slick out-of-town lawyers and consultants rock up in their top-of-the-range gas-guzzling sports cars and tell rural communities that they do not matter. Who claim that for the sake of progress on the planet, we must see our landscapes destroyed and the devastating impacts on wildlife, peat, watercourses and biodiversity are conveniently downplayed. All the while, local people are told that they should be grateful for the pittons that they are offered by way of return—a so-called community benefit. It is nothing more than stake-condoned bribery used to divide communities and manipulate planning outcomes. It is all the more insulting when it is contrasted with the millions banked by the new renewable barons. On top of that feeling of unfairness, we see a landscape impact methodology that focuses on what are often manipulated viewpoints overlooking what it is like to live and work in the vicinity of those developments, where people intricately know, love and are connected to their landscapes across generations. Linked to that, we also see a very narrow focus on residential immunity. Forgetting the environment around them is exactly why people choose to live in the countryside. Under the current system, many pockets of outstanding natural beauty are sacrificed because they are too small to merit national protection. Tourism concerns are downplayed despite developers' own studies showing a loss of jobs in some areas post-build, and, of course, the promised new green jobs just do not materialise. It gets worse, because there is something truly sinister going on below the road it is. Of course, in this life, it is always easier to turn a blind eye, but our current planning system is being corrupted by cash payments. That is serious and turbocharging rural depopulation. Some people call it the new clearances, but it can be more accurately described as the disappearances. Secret deals take place, non-disclosure agreements, signing away people's rights to object in the planning process in exchange for payment are now commonplace in Scotland. Others sell directly to the developer or those connected by the project to reduce the planning requirements. They literally vanish from their homes and the only trace they leave is a letter in the hands of the developer with vague statements confirming that the wind farm application had nothing to do with their move. Those murky practices are gutting our rural valleys and pitting neighbour against neighbour. You cannot blame people, Presiding Officer, for taking the golden ticket, but in this context it does make those who choose to make a stand in the David and Goliath battle to stand up for their homes and their communities against attempts to manipulate the planning system all the more impressive. I pay tribute to some of those who have been in the Parliament today, but we need to act. This is not right in Scotland in 2023. Climate concerns, our environment and our people, not who can pay the most, should be at the heart of our consent regime. Minister, it is time to step in and stop the rot. Our communities deserve a fair hearing. I now call Sarah Boyack to be followed by Alexander Stewart. I also want to congratulate Alexander Burnett for bringing his motion today and managing to get it into the chamber. There are parts of the motion that I do not agree with, but it is important that we have this debate so that people can raise issues from their communities and test it in the Parliament, especially when our constituents are with us in the chamber today. I want to hold together or hold to account, rather, our colleague Mr Burnett. Indeed, every Conservative MSP has stated that we need to deliver a wholly renewable-powered Scotland and we have the wealth of natural resources to achieve that. That manifesto wants to say that we also support the expansion of onshore wind capacity in Scotland, where it is agreed by and benefits local communities as well as our country as a whole. I do not think that the motion exactly matches up with that commitment. The emphasis in the motion that I agree with, which I want to reflect on, is on the involvement of communities, because we see that in our planning system. It is utterly crucial that communities are involved, treated with respect and that local authorities consult them properly, and that we make sure that our planning system is not a top-down process where controversial issues automatically go up to the Scottish Government and then get given the go-ahead. I think that there is a need to have a more grounded local approach. In fact, in our last manifesto for the Scottish Parliament elections, we suggested to the Scottish Labour that we should have what we call the third party right of appeal, so that local communities could also appeal against a decision being taken. That would mean that communities were given more priority and it would encourage developers to talk to them more. I am not going to do it because I will try to stick to the four minutes. One of the things that I want to welcome is the point that was made in his opening remarks about the issue of community benefits. I think that that is a much underexplored and a huge opportunity. I think that there is an issue about communities who see huge developments taking place and they personally do not get any benefit from it. There is something that we need to change there, and that must be a frustration, not just in terms of the view but also in terms of their energy bills. We have designed a grid that incentivises building of power closest to dense urban communities, and yet the renewables transition is all about making sure that we have renewables across the country. That needs to be a fair process. There are other solutions where communities can work with developers. In Fintry, for example, we saw a fantastic development where people to this day are benefiting from the wind turbines in our area. I recently went to the Point and Sandbook Trust in the Western Isles and saw their community-owned wind farm. That trust receives an income of nearly £1 million a year, and that has been used to support the community and to support people with local people with their energy bills. I think that there is an opportunity here. The UK Climate Change Committee in its delivering reliable, decarbonised power system report projected that our UK electricity demand is going to double from about 300 terawatt hours to 600 terawatt hours by 2050. I think that we need to work together and we need to test the system as colleagues are doing today. We need to make sure that we get political leadership so that we can increase our renewable supply, but that just transition relates to local members of the public. It relates to local communities. For example, why doesn't our planning system require developers to have a proportion of the development employing local members of the public or requiring developments that are made in Scotland so that we don't just import all our winter binds. Solar is another big opportunity. We could be seeing much more in terms of solar development. I was interested to see that Highland Council is looking at three solar projects. As I understand it, developments are now taking place with technology that you can have solar and you can also farming at the same time. There are opportunities and we need to be ahead of the game. That is why we are very keen of the Scottish Labour to make sure that we are a clean energy superpower. We create the jobs that I have talked about across the country. We cut people's bills, particularly in rural communities, because the 35 per cent fuel poverty is way worse in our rural communities. Many of whom are off-gas grid and have expensive electricity bills. We need to turn that round. We need to boost energy security and play our part in tackling the climate crisis, but do it in such a way that we are working with local communities. I see that in my urban areas as well as rural areas. We need to boost the capacity of communities to work together and to negotiate with developers. For example, the work done by the cooperative movement is supporting local communities now. I would like to hear from the minister about how the Scottish Government can do more to work with communities, to fund our councils, so that we see more local ownership, sensitivity to local developments, to think about how we can make the planning system better, to make sure that local communities do not just see a renewable project installed near them without any real consultation, without any real engagement, but that they can get an actual benefit from it. If we do that, that will be a just transition. I now call Alexander Stewart to be followed by Martin Whitfield. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I would like to congratulate my colleague Alexander Burnett for bringing the motion to the chamber. The route to an effective just transition is an issue that has rightly received much scrutiny in recent years. It is important to remember, however, that failing to achieve this transition in a way that is fair and proportionate is something that will impact some communities far more than others. Today's motion speaks about the impact of the unjust transition on rural communities. It is important to highlight that the views of these communities, the transition that they are willingness, is truly seen as unjust. Today's motion speaks about how many rural communities have overwhelmingly opposed on-shore windfarm proposals only to see those objections overruled through central government dictat. We have heard a number of examples today already, and there are other examples across my own region. The roads of windfarm development in Clackmannanshire were rejected back in 2013 by the council, having received numerous objections from many community groups across the area. However, that refusal was promptly overturned by the Scottish Government the following year. A true just transition for rural communities is one that works with those communities, talks about their concerns instead of riding rudshod over them and imposing, as we have already heard, large windfarm developments within the communities. It is one that ensures that those developments give back to the surrounding communities, and that has been touched upon. Today's motion is right to speak about the calls for a mandatory minimum contribution rate for renewable energy developments. The Bunfoot Windfarm Community Fund, which provides grants for communities once again across the Clackmannanshire area, is an example of that and how those developments can provide compensation for the communities that are most affected. If rural communities are to receive this just transition, they must ensure that all community funds of that kind are given back to the surrounding communities in a way that is truly fair. There are a number of ways in which the journey to net zero risks hitting rural communities is the hardest of all. Those include schemes such as the SNP's Workplace Parking Levy, which will hit rural communities who have no choice but to have and commute by car to the facilities and locations that they require. Thank you very much. I was not a steward, but I was not a steward recognised, though, that those decisions about Workplace Parking Levy are actually devolved to local government who could make that decision. Alex Neil. I thank the Minister for the Intervention, but it is rural communities that will pay the price minister because they have little choice, as I have said, in how they manage that. It is also the slow roll-out of the electing charging points in rural settings, which will make life increasingly difficult for rural communities over the next decade. Are rural communities already facing tough challenges in the transition to net zero, yet, despite that, the Government is still forcing them to accept proposals that they have objected to? In conclusion, alongside my colleagues on those benches, I will continue to stand up for rural communities whose voices are not being heard through this process, only by working with those communities and ensuring that there is comprehension, compensation and understanding, there will be an ability. We can just see how that can be achieved for people in areas throughout Scotland because today their voices are not being heard. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I now call Martin Whitfield to be followed by Brian Whittle. I am very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to contribute to this member's debate. I congratulate Alexander Burnett, who, with my assistance, managed to reach the requisite number. I did so not because I am in agreement with everything contained in this motion, but, as others have pointed out, there are really important elements in this that need to be debated, which we have not had the opportunity to debate, which need to reflect our constituents from across Scotland and their experience of renewables and, indeed, the community benefit that they have seen flow from it. There is something about how, when these plans start, the outreach to the communities actually leaves a lot to be desired. There tends to be outreach to certain elements of it, to stakeholders of it, and sometimes the actual individuals within our communities are the last to find out, frequently from Facebook groups in their own villages and areas that point out that something is happening. However, we have the academic research and the intellectual knowledge to understand how dialogical forms of engagement, where companies, local authorities and, indeed, the Scottish Government reach out properly in a two-way discussion with constituents where support can be generated because there is confidence in what they are being told, what they see the results and what they see the benefit coming to them. I can speak of incidents from other industries, such as EDF, Tarmac and, indeed, Viridol credits, where there is close work with the community, where they share assets, money and other experience so that the communities feel part of these industries. I do see a struggle, particularly in my own experience, with offshore coming onshore but also onshore wind farms, where that can be a challenge. Inch Cape, who have a point that will be coming in impressive hands, have worked incredibly hard to reach out to their communities and, indeed, have managed to provide support before a scheme is formally in place to support the Children's Gala, to support holiday clubs, to support much work that, I have to say, much of which comes from the cuts that the local authorities have suffered. I will not pursue that point. Berwick Bank, which intends to come ashore close to Dunbar, we see challenges where a community is being expected to have infrastructure changes that are happening from a whole source of areas, and, in fact, they have to take it upon themselves to struggle to identify what the impact can be on their communities. We have the challenge, then, of the compensation of going forward. What should it look like? How much should it be? How should it be divided? The offshore communities have the challenge that, effectively, the shoreline is massive for offshore. So who is the community that is being talked about? I speak about the Berwick Bank community and the community council there, who are very specific about the effect on their quite small community, but of coming ashore over a battle site close to an industrial area that could perhaps be achieved at easier. So we need to do better both in this place, but also those that hold these contracts need to continue to do better, continue to reach out, because if we fail and we don't take our communities with us and there is a real chance that that may occur, then actually the challenge of reaching a net zero is going to be that much harder. Quite frankly, why should our communities be the ones that feel dumped on to help the central belt?  I'm very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Whitfield. Before I call the next speaker, I would advise that, due to the number of members who wish to speak in this debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I would invite Alexander Burnett to move a motion without notice. Many thanks. The question is that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I now call Brian Whittle to be followed by Katie Clark. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I congratulate my colleague Alexander Burnett for bringing this debate to the chamber. I'm very grateful to be able to speak in that debate. Now I'm a south of Scotland MSP and I'm consistently dealing with onshore wind issues in my mailbag. I was struck by my colleague Alexander Burnett saying that he spoke to communities who are surrounded by a ring of steel. We had a very similar issue last term in East Asia where a town ended up surrounded by wind turbines. Every direction on every hill, the view is of a huge wind turbine, despite consistent rejection from local communities. It's not just that there's not enough consultation with our communities. It's the ignoring of the community voices when they make their views known. Earlier on today, I was down in Abington where there is a public consultation going on about putting in an electricity transmission substation near Redshaw. It strikes me there that perhaps when we're doing a consultation for wind turbines, I think that the local communities do not understand that it's not just the turbines that will be put in. It is things like substation. It is like overhead cabling, which predominantly comes in with that, which are not at the... Of course. I'll leave them down. I thank Toll for taking the intervention. I just wanted if you'd agree with me that those considerations should form part of the energy consent units application process and their consideration before giving consent that should be tagged on afterwards. Brian Whistle. You've just picked up the very next point that I was going to make, Mr Midell, because it absolutely is true. It shouldn't just be about the wind turbines. The community should know exactly what it is they're being asked to put up with, and that should take into account things like substations, things like cabling as well. The whole process of dealing with the application of wind turbines must include that. I've also been dealing with a case for the last five years where a wind farm was erected despite concerns about the effects that this may have on the local water supplies, and those rural houses with a private water supply were indeed polluted. New boreholes were then established by the contractor. However, the water quality was very poor, yet they cannot get the water quality tests done regularly, as is supposed to happen. I think that this is part of the issue as well around... It's all very well as saying that we will deal with these post-building of a wind farm, but we have to make sure that these companies and CPA itself are resourced enough to be able to ensure that regulations are met. I appreciate Mr Midell taking the intervention. Does he recognise that, often when applications are referred to the Scottish Government for approval, those approvals come with conditions, but the local authorities have no capacity or resources to police those conditions? That's a fundamental error, a fundamental flaw in the Scottish Government approving such applications. From the casting that is, of course, absolutely correct, and that is exactly the issue that I would like to raise here, is that it's all very well having conditions during the application, but you have to be able to enforce those conditions. Currently, our local authorities are not resourced enough to be able to do that. I'm not against on-show when, in fact, I see them as potentially part of a solution where wind power could power, for example, hydrogen generation, which in turn could create local energy supplies off the grid. However, communities feel they are being used, they are sacrificed to power the central belt, and if we continue to develop on-show wind, honesty is required, not just directing the wind farms, but the development of those substations that we talked about and the overhead cables. We need to work at our planning issues, which has been discussed at length by just about every presenter today. 13 years from application to build is not conducive to reaching net zero. Perhaps we do need to look at how we can set areas aside where specific presumption of planning might be in agreement. Certainly, communities with on-show wind farms on their doorstep should have lower energy bills at the very least. Certainly, community voices must not only be heard, but they must be listened to.  I now call Katie Clark to be followed by Douglas Ross, Ms Clark. I would like to thank Alistair Burnett for securing this debate and indeed for arranging the round table on the issue that took place earlier today. Many important points have already been made in this debate, and in particular I associate myself with the contribution of Sarah Boyack on third party rights of appeal. I fully support the need for a rapid expansion of the renewable sector, but, as has been said, that needs to be done with the support of local communities and with clear benefits to local people. That does not mean that every proposal from every developer should be granted. There are significant problems, for example, with the ownership of much of the sector and some of the people who are behind proposals. In North Ayrshire recently, there have been big community campaigns against both the Rickhill wind farm proposals and the Cumbry solar farm. We need to make sure that planning law and indeed the national planning framework 6 ensure that local communities' voices are listened to. I am particularly interested in the reference in the motion to the United Kingdom and the Scottish Government's joint review of the regulations ETSUR 97 on all new onshore wind farm development. I am interested in this due to issues that have been raised with me over an extended period of time by constituents in relation to low frequency noise and indeed vibration, not just in relation to wind turbines but to wind turbine testing, drill ships and a range of other industrial developments. I note that the Scottish Government is intending to implement the recommendations of the UK and Scottish Government's joint review and I support that. However, I believe that we need to go further in particular in relation to measuring the noise effects of wind turbines, as I believe the research on that has moved on and the regulations are now out of date. I am disappointed that the review does not seem to recognise the specific concerns of low frequency noise. That is an issue that has been raised with me repeatedly by constituents. Despite the fact that it has been raised repeatedly with elected representatives for many years, there is no new guidance issued on local authorities. We are still relying on regulations from 2005. Although local authorities have a duty to investigate complaints relating to noise pollution under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, they are not supplied with updated guidance from either the Scottish or UK Governments. In 2011, the proposed criteria for the assessment of low frequency noise disturbance report by the University of Salford for Diffra highlighted that individual surveyed had attributed sleep disturbance stress headaches, migraines and severe mental health issues to low frequency noise. Despite the findings of the report, we have not seen action to update guidance. We need to recognise that the sector is rapidly expanding and we need to ensure that the regulations keep up with that expansion given the rapid changes that we are seeing. In conclusion, I fully support the Scottish Government in its attempts to see the rapid expansion of the sector. However, that cannot be the wild west. We need to make sure that the views and concerns of local people are taken into account and where developments proceed that the local community sees advantages to them with what happens. I now call Douglas Ross, who will be the last speaker before I ask the minister to respond. Mr Ross. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I congratulate my friend Alexander Burnett on securing this important debate and also welcome people to the public gallery who have come to their Parliament from across Scotland to hear this crucial topic discussed. I only note the record. I assume that they will share my disappointment that in a debate about the environment, about renewable energy and about a just transition, a little over half an hour from being at full strength to support their green minister holding on to her job, not a single green MSP could be present in this Parliament to listen to this debate or contribute. Two green ministers, five green back ventures and not a single one in this chamber. I think that that is very telling for a party that claims to put environment above all else. It is really important that MSPs from across the political spectrum are here to listen to this debate and to the concerns of the communities that they represent. Alexander Burnett and I met residents from Murray and Aberdeenshire who were worried and continued to be concerned about the cumulative impact on wind farm developments in their area. The Cabra Trust brought us together because they wanted their politicians to hear the concerns of local people. Unlike them, I want to stay on record my support for a just transition, but to do that we must take people, individuals and communities with us. Sadly, in many parts of Scotland and I think in my own area of Murray and much of the Highlands and Islands, we have already reached a saturation point for wind farms and massive wind turbines. As Alex Burnett pointed out, the Scottish Government's policy could demand the installation of another 3,400 new onshore wind turbines in just the next seven years. By 2030, we could see that many more wind turbines approved and placed in Scotland. Where are they going to go? This will have a devastating impact on our landscapes. Landscapes that are often protected and which bring tourists and money into our areas for people who want to enjoy it. I am reminded when I mentioned tourism that when I chaired the Murray Council planning committee, I once had an SNP councillor who claimed that tourists would come to the area to view the wind turbines, and that is why he supported them in his space cycle and live at war. I was appalled and amazed by the comment then and I am appalled that that type of thinking could still persist, because those wind turbines put people off coming to our area. The 22-proposed turbines for Clash and Darax extension will be up to 200 metres tall. That is an industrial size in a rural landscape of exceptional beauty. A landscape largely undisturbed and of particular attraction to the thousands of tourists that come to the Cabrach every year, and the Cabrach Trust is doing more and more to encourage more to come to the area. Yet this attraction of the landscape is at stake if we continue to bulldoze our rural areas and make way for turbines that leave a scar on these areas forever. In some places, onshore wind may be desirable, workable or even agreeable, but that is the point. Some areas with local consent and buy-in must be taken with the applications. They do not deserve to have enormous developments imposed on them, yet that is how they feel. They feel ignored, let down and angry about the destruction of their local communities. As Alex Burnett highlighted, decisions about these turbines are placed ultimately with the Energy Consent Unit. I have seen decisions that I took with my committee overturned by the Energy Consent Unit in Edinburgh. I took John Swinney's point that councils could appeal those decisions in fairness, in honesty and realistically speaking. They could not afford a judicial review. I will give a bit of time. I will give way. I acknowledge the points that he is making about this particular challenge, but when an issue really matters to a local authority, I had a case in my constituency where the local authority took the Government to judicial review, not on an energy consent matter. The local authority was run by Mr Ross's party at that time, and the judicial review failed comprehensively, ruled out by the court that it was a no legal foundation for it. My point is that the decisions that were taken properly by the Government stood up to legal scrutiny. That is the point that I am trying to say. In the energy consent process, there is an obligation of following the statutory process to make sure that lawful decisions are taken as a consequence. I understand that local authorities might not like them, but they are taken in accordance with the statutory framework that we put in place in Parliament. That is the problem. The policy that is put in place by the current Government is to see more on-shore renewable energy when councils, locally elected members, who are democratically sent to council chambers to represent their constituents, take a counter-view and say that it is not appropriate for their area. It is slapped down by the energy consent unit here in Edinburgh, and that is not a positive way to make decisions. We can only secure a truly just transition to net zero if local people benefit and feel involved. I implore the minister to look up at the galleries behind us today, to look around at the people who have travelled from across Scotland because this matters to them and their communities, listen to their concerns and objections and take seriously their views. They are not here just fighting for their landscapes on our beautiful countryside, but they are also fighting to uphold local democracy, and that surely must be important to all of us. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I want to thank Alexander Burnett for bringing the debate to the chamber. It has been a comprehensive debate and I have agreed with an awful lot of what has actually been said across the chamber. I have disagreed with some of it. I just want to point to a couple of things that I particularly agreed with. I am going to go to Martin Whitfield's contribution on public engagement. What he said about public engagement being early and even before development begins is so important. That buy-in that you get from communities is the right thing to do first of all, but I also think that it makes really good business sense for those people to do that. If you have got the communities behind you and they can see the benefits of what has been built within their communities and that they are listened to before real decisions are made, as that planning process has gone through, then you are going to have benefits for everyone. I have seen that in action. I mean, it is a couple of examples of people that people made, but where they have seen that in action and that has been buy-in, in my constituency. I am a rural MSP myself, so it is not as if I am sat in the ivory towers of Edinburgh and this is all news to me. I know these issues, but in my area we have Aberdeen offshore windfarm, which is the visibility of the community of Balmedy and Balhelvey. That is a community that was engaged with early. The act justifies the very proud of the windfarm, but they were also very involved in how the community benefits should be spent and there was engagement from the get-go from the developer, which happened to be Vattenfall. I think that that point is really well made. I also want to go to John Swinney's point. John Swinney is alluding to the wildfires that we have seen in the last few days and the water scarcity. That has really put it into sharp focus, just what we are trying to do here when we are looking at renewable energies and reducing our need to actually burn hydrocarbons, which effectively is causing climate change. Just a few months ago, the Government had to put in place streams of funding to help families to pay their fuel bills. It is an energy security issue. We have energy security issues, particularly with regard to what is going on in geopolitics, but we have also got energy affordability as well. Communities also need to see tangible household benefits. That is one of the things that I have been saying to developers. I have only been in the job for about 12 weeks now, but I have been saying to every developer that the phrase that we keep on using is that there are only so many times that you can paint a scout hut. Sometimes community benefits can look a little bit like window dressing. Sometimes there is not a suite of options available. I do not know that communities are involved, but there is not that inventiveness about what community benefits can actually look like. I am very grateful to Gillian Mountain for giving way on that point. That then speaks back to what you discussed earlier, which is about the consultation. If there is narrowed consultation with a community, you may get, and rightly so, a repaint scout hut. That is genuine consultation. You find what the communities need both in physical assets but also sometimes in ongoing support for community kitchens and things like that, which goes back to the really important point that the consultation has to be genuine and honest and two-way. I agree. It cannot be tokenistic and it cannot be what the developers think the community might want as well. It also cannot be what even the local authorities think a community might want. It has to be the communities that are impacted as well. I had a situation in my constituency where there is a need for some help, for some ventilation systems in a technical department of a school. I am thinking, well, that is a really expensive thing to get done. That is producing the young people of the future that are going to be able to weld and going to be able to build things. Maybe that is the sort of thing that the developers can get involved in. What does your community actually need? I will come back to community benefits, because we have been talking about that quite a lot. Despite the success of community benefits in terms of the generation of £194 million to date over the past 20 or so years, and I had record £25 million last year, despite the success of that. In that point out to everyone, if you are not aware, I am sure that you all are. It is not a compulsory thing. It is not a system that is compulsory for developers. As energy regulation is reserved to UK Government, I would really like to think that after today, we can join together to say that the cause of Scottish Government has made. I am very much getting the sense across the benches that we would all like to see community benefits for developments being compulsory. Perhaps that is something that, as Scottish parliamentarians, we can all make and ask. I will take the question from the car. I think that we are focusing too much on the community benefit. I have never heard of a wind farm company refusing to give the voluntary payment, so I think that that is a bit of a red herring. Dumfries and Galloway is one of those areas that is saturated in wind farms. Local authority and communities are waving a white flag when it comes to applications, because they just do not have the capacity to even meet the legal deadlines. Those applications—50 of them have gone to the Scottish Government, 11 of them from Dumfries and Galloway—how can you ensure that the capacity is within councils' resources to ensure that the local voices are heard, whatever the community benefit is? Finlay Carson is, as usual, eloquent, if not a little verbose in his interventions there. I was going to come on to talk about some of the contributions from your colleagues, in particular. I hear the criticisms from Oliver Mundell, and particularly—I was completely concerned to hear some of the criticisms that Oliver Mundell put about the way that Oliver Mundell, as a representative, felt pushed out of a consultation when he was trying to make some points to developers on behalf of his constituents. I feel that communities need to be engaged more fully and more able to determine what their communities get, but also what is actually happening in terms of the development. I will try and be briefer than Finlay Carson. It was to ask whether the minister thinks that it is fair at the moment that communities have to fundraise in order to get professional support to oppose applications and to take part in the planning appeals process. I do not have a view on that at the moment. It is something that I may be thinking about. I was going to make the offer to Oliver Mundell that the specific concerns that he raised in his speech might be something that he might want to write to me about. It might be something that he does not want to broadcast to those who are talking about in the chamber, so I am happy to have that conversation with him. Time is running out, and there was enough a lot more that I wanted to mention. Katie Clark mentioned about ETSUR 97. That is obviously something that the Scottish Government provided some money for that short-term review project, but that was in collaboration with the Welsh Government and the UK Government. My understanding is that the good practice there has been reviewed because it was set but 25 years ago, so it is probably not fit for purpose. We are still to hear back because obviously the guidance is actually going to be reviewed by the UK Government based on the collaboration with the devolved Governments as well, so we should hear back from that. When Katie Clark is pointing out some of the mental health issues there, it is a serious point that needs to be made. I am going to say in conclusion that we have just closed our energy strategy and just transition consultation. There are a lot of issues around just what the impact could be in meeting the goals that we set ourselves for the energy transition. Energy transition absolutely has to happen, and it has to be meaningful for people. I have listened today as to some of the concerns that have been brought up. I am going to note them, and I am going to speak to my officials about them, particularly around that engagement with communities about what happens, where and what locus community has in that. I want to extend the offer that if you have particular issues, obviously you will understand that I cannot talk about live planning applications that are over 50 megawatts, which will obviously come to me for final decision, but beyond that, about the practices of companies that you might find concerning that could help your communities, you know where I am.


Good day, fellow investors! As you have seen in the last video, I'm researching Asian stocks. I'm looking for interesting investments to cover on my stock market research platform and I'm going, as always, through lists. I have found a list of value-invested, value-oriented, Singapore, Asian-focused funds and I'm going through the list of stocks to see, okay, where are they seeing value? Can I find some value for myself to follow? The largest position is Minabia Mitsumi. It's a Japanese precision parts component company that makes from microball bearings, motors that work on your hard drive and all those little little things that go into computers, into cars, all the motors in a car, the locks and things like that. So a very, very interesting company closely related to the economy, demand for cars, demand for cloud computers, etc. But with high potential upside and what they did in the past is really remarkable. They grew sales five times and they plan to grow sales three times, two point five times over the next ten years on a conservative financial basis where they will pay out dividends, do buybacks, return money to shareholders, which is a key component when it comes to Japanese companies as the corporate government's culture is different from American companies. American companies focus on shareholders, Japanese focus on the business. We are building the business. So it's a balance there and also we did a video about Michael Burry, how he says there is an index fund bubble and how companies in Japan are undervalued. So it's a good thing to look at these Japanese stocks. I'm going to give you an overview on what the company does and then also a risk reward investment thesis. So here goes the overview. It's a Japanese manufacturer of precision equipment and components, bearings, motors, sensors and even semiconductors. The company is a fast growing company through 17 acquisition and organic growth. They managed to triple sales and increase operating income five fold over the last 10 years and they plan to continue to do that and do that through acquisitions, organic growth, investing at return on equity higher than 15%. So this is what they did over the past 10 years from 16 countries to 22 countries quadrupled, tripled the number of plants and they have plants in Japan, China, Korea, Southeast Asia, Thailand, Europe, North America, South America. They make all those precision things that are needed and even buffered both precision caster parts a few years ago. So this might be a competitor and this might be a similar company with similar attitudes. For the next three years 50% of the cumulative free cash flow will be allocated to share buybacks and dividends and this is very important because it shows good intentions to shareholders which is a rarity or which is a new things when it comes to Japanese companies. They produce a lot of things. We don't need to go in the details, we'll go into an overview. This is what they did significant growth due to organic growth and mergers and acquisitions added 500 billion yen of revenues, organic growth 270 billion and they plan to continue to do that. They are buying all those companies that are not profitable, that are in a hard place because they can't smaller companies but that can't really turn the corner when it comes to applying new technologies to that all technologies that we are always using. For example one acquisition was Yushin that makes locks, car locks, home locks but they didn't have the technology to make it with motors, with everything that is needed in the current environment. So they bought it and they hope to turn around the company and that's what their message is. We integrate other manufacturers of precision components into the lean mean machine that the company is. For now it's working well, there are ups and downs but we have to see how it fits, how it will work out long term. There will be ups and downs which is also the biggest risk or the biggest opportunity when it comes to investing. There may be a Mitsumi, they acquired Mitsumi a few years ago. It was an interesting thing because the stock price surged before the acquisition was made public so there was a leak in information. So again one day leak but then very interesting how these things happen all around the world. They have business segments, the machined components, ball bearings, rod head fasteners with huge margins 23-25%, return on investment capital 40%, this is the gem, this is the business, they have a leading position in the globe, those micro-micro ball bearings and special fasteners for crazy little things that are motors in your mobile phones etc. They really have an advantage there. However they are investing as you see return on investment capital 30%. However they are investing into much lower margins. Mitsumi, the acquisition, you see it's not really going well, margins have turned negative over the last two quarters and the slowdown so they are not managing to reach those advantages that they have. They think they will work on synergies but I'm a little bit worried about those synergies. It will be with ups and downs and therefore I'm thinking okay it can go down before it goes down. Return on investment capital 11% is much lower than 30% and we know that return on invested capital is what means over the long term. If they can get rid of the products that are low margin and focus on those niches that really do well it could be really another win-win situation but it takes time to develop. Also Mitsumi, negative operating margins lately so it is in a tough spot, the stock has been volatile, will probably remain volatile, motors, lead components, who knows what they are doing, a lot of those tiny, tiny stuff, power supply, adapters, things like that and we'll see how that is implied. You've seen also you can see low, low margins and we'll see if they can improve those margins of the long term. There is a lot of competition, they are not the only ones doing touch sensors, power closure system, flash handles, electric shifters, touch panels and things like that but that's what they are focusing on and if they can keep healthy profitability over the long term and increase the base because those ball bearings are needed also in cloud storage facilities, data storage facility etc. then they might really do good and they have been profitable over the past years and if they continue to do that then that could be really, really good. This is very important, they are going to distribute 50% of the free cash flows in dividends and share buybacks, 50% of the free cash flows will go to mergers and acquisitions and the rest 50% of EBITDA will continue to go to capex, maintenance and growth capex. So you can see here at the price earnings ratio in the teens that you will see further growth, you will see some returns and if they triple the company over the next 10 years then they will be very, very successful like they were over the last 10 years. There will be ups and downs, there have been ups and downs in the stock price over the last 10 years so that's a given but it's a good company to focus on and watch. If you look at return on equity, it has been negative 2010, 2014 but then turned into positive and if they can maintain that or if it goes to negative again and then you can buy when it turns positive again then you have yourself a great deal. To do that you have to cover the stock for a few years, learn what's going, if you fancy what they are doing. However there are free cash flows so there's always positive that that is not that much. They keep their earnings per share there okay price earnings ratio what will be around 15 depending on the earnings volatility so not expensive for the exposure they are offering to all the growth and all the technology developments that will happen. So their current sales are one trillion Japanese yen they plan to increase those sales 2.5 times 2.5 trillion over the next years through acquisitions and increase consequently net income let's say five times. On a current price earnings ratio of what 10-ish 12-ish if they grow at that rate over the next 10 years also the stock will become a five-bagger like it was the case over the last 10 years and they are still a small company so there is still potential for that growth but they have one very very profitable component which is the ball bearings and fasteners which has a return on investment capital of 30% and they are now acquiring all these other companies Ushin the lock maker Mitsumi the electrical parts maker and they try to apply the same standards to those companies. Yes revenues are increasing profits are increasing but we are really in a high cycle a lot of demand for all these things going on and we have to see how are they going to implement what they are doing and keep the same profitability and standards for now it's not going well on the recent acquisition Mitsumi and we'll see how it goes on Ushin as it has some companies and factories in Europe that have to be upgraded improved and they have to reach profitability so we'll see how that fits and Japanese people don't like to withdraw and they might throw good money after bad money until they reach their targets which is something normal for Japanese companies and one reason why it's always different many investors prefer American companies because something is not profitable they cut it immediately cut their losses and go to something else Japanese culture is different and you have to also see it from that perspective however if they grow let's say three times the stock price grows three times over the next 10 years they pay out 50% of cash flow into dividends and buybacks it means that earnings will grow perhaps five times the stock will grow five times so if things go as planned this will be a great return however we have to watch what the management is doing so again a company to put on my covered stock list and watch over time and probably buy when there is really a downturn automotive locks home improvements smart homes it will not be linear it will be up and down and up and down and if you buy at those downs and the market is always focused on the short term I looked at I think seven investment bank reports and everybody is talking about the next few quarters not about the next 10 years so that's an advantage we investors have over Wall Street be it Japanese Wall Street or the rest of the world Wall Street I hope I have given you a good perspective with these two Asian stocks and give it a comparison to the technology stocks that are in the US traded in the US so that you can weigh and see okay what's going on in the world compare it to the risk reward of your other investments and then see how it fits your portfolio don't forget to check my stock market research platform with all my research my portfolio many other such undiscovered global investments that might really give lower risk higher reward potential to your portfolio also check my website with blogs reports my book etc if you have any questions about my platform about anything any financial issues please send me an email I always like to receive your emails to see how you think about this and to have a two-side communication on this channel thank you and I'll see you in the next video


Good morning John, I've had a half a cup of coffee and I'm gonna do something I almost never do. I'm gonna make an unscripted video about a thing that I care very passionately about. You watching this video need to not want a gas stove. Why?  Here's the thing that you are right about. The Curly Q heating element stoves, they are the worst. They're hard to clean, they're extremely hard to control like you cannot turn them on and off quickly. They take forever to heat up, they take forever to cool down.  They're so beautiful that like Gordon Ramsay uses it. But what you're doing when you have a natural gas stove is burning stuff in your home which results in, get this, decreased indoor air quality. Now you can get around this by like having your fume hood like going full blast and certainly never have a natural gas stove that doesn't have a hood. Or get this, you could have an induction stove top that has more power and is easier to control than natural gas. Chances are there are three pipes connected to your house. There's the one that brings you water. That one's important. The one that takes the water away. We also want that. And the one that brings you methane. What century is this? It would be like having the gas station bring the gasoline directly to your car. Like this is a bad idea. Now I know what you're thinking. Hank, there is no way that cooking my Hello Fresh is significantly adding to climate change and you're right. But here's the thing, household natural gas use is a big contributor to climate change. It's just not mostly the stove top. However, when natural gas companies ask people how they feel about switching their furnace from gas to electric or their water heater from gas to electric, they're like, I don't care, whichever, whatever's better. I don't know. Because you currently have a really efficient way to get power into your home that isn't a pipe full of methane. It's a power line. And there are great electric water heaters and there are great electric furnaces and heat bumps. People say, I want my natural gas stove, but that's a tiny percentage of the methane that is actually being sold by the gas company. Almost all of it is used in furnaces and water heaters. But as long as people are like, I wanna keep my gas stove, it's harder to clean, it makes the air inside my house dirty, but House Hunters says that it's a top tier product. People will keep having the natural gas companies build and replace this extremely expensive infrastructure to pipe gas into our homes. And gas companies are freaking out about this and they're doing all these campaigns about how great gas ranges are, even though they are objectively worse, because if they can keep that toe hole, they can make it make sense to keep giving you gas for those other things that electric could easily replace. But look, electric could also easily replace your stove because induction stove tops are better than gas.  Then you throw it onto your induction stove top and nothing happens because that's not how it works. It induces the heat in the pan. The stove top itself doesn't get hot because they're amazing. So you have to put it into a pan, put that on the stove top, fry it up and have it with butter. This is why I script, that right there is why I script. So that doesn't happen. It's not important that you replace your gas stove right now. In fact, it's probably best that you don't. It's important that you don't think it's better than induction because it's not. Because at some point in the future someone's gonna knock on your door and say this area is about to have its natural gas pipes replaced and we have to decide whether or not to replace them with infrastructure that will last 60 to 80 years. And if a bunch of people in your neighborhood say, well, I would, but I really like my gas stove top, it's not gonna happen. And we're gonna keep burning methane in people's houses for 80 years. I would be sympathetic if gas were better, but it's not. John, I'll see you on Tuesday.


Welcome to the Tick-Mill Update, I'm Kiana Daniela, the founder of the Investeva Movement. On Tuesday, we found out that the global leaders doubt that China and the U.S. will reach a phase two trade deal by the end of Trump's term. Canadian manufacturing sales declined 0.6% to $57 billion in November, the third consecutive monthly decrease. The U.K. employment grew by 208,000 in the three months to November as the unemployment rate stayed at 3.8%. The German economic sentiment continued to rise significantly in January, but credit applications by Eurozone companies unexpectedly fell last quarter for the first time in six years. On Wednesday, we'll be looking at Canada's CPI and Australia's jobs report for day-trading risk events. Today, I'm looking at the dollar-yen pair on the weekly chart, which has now confirmed a break above the weekly HMCL, and the key resistance level of 109.47. This week, the pair appears to be in a pullback mode, which is what we normally expect after a break above the cloud. From here, we could see further gains in the next couple of months towards the key Fibonacci tradesmen levels at 110.56 and 112.11 respectively. Now I'd like to hear from you. Do you think dollar-yen will continue its long-term uptrend to these levels? Let me know down here in the comments. Of course, trading the financial markets involves a risk of loss, and you should only trade the money that you can afford to lose. If you liked this video, don't forget to give it a thumbs up and subscribe to the Tick-Mill YouTube and Instagram channels. I'll get back to you with more updates tomorrow.