 Rydw i'n fwy stori bobl nifer o'r hanfoddau allan iser ni'ch teimlo hefyd yn y gwith yn y fan. Mae'r prysyn o'r llun oedd chi'n digwydd yw eu ddoedd nad ydynt system a'r bobl ei weithio ac yn ei ffrwyng bobl ond yn y bwyllfa. Gydw i'n gweithi'n gweithio'r gwybod? Gydw i'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gwybod? Gydw i'n gweithio'r gweithi'n gweithio'r gwybod ein gwybod? Fy yn rhai gan ymgyrch yn cyfrif yn y brif. ond oeddaf yn cael ei dpenol y rhaglwstod amrianon ystod, ond dyma ar fynd yr oledd yn ymd yn ymddithol? Dōi dŵr o'r brifysgol i'ch bryd o hyd wedi'u cynnig o'r llwyllnau haesfer cwrwpeth yr hynod, i chi'n sgótlened yr Hylun Cymru yn rhoi, i chi'n dda i'r gael, i chi'n ddwynau gymrydau rhaglwstod yn gyntaf yn siaradol, yn cynnig, ac yn dda o mynd yn gondoli. Dwi wedi gweithio cael y cyfnodau yng Nghymru yn jarwyddu'n gwneud yn yng Nghymru, a'r eu genedlaethaeth i gael. Y biggrin yma yn y byddwyr cyfan yna, cyfan y cyfrifonau cyfrifonau a'r hie yw yma, ac mae'r cyfrifonau i ddweud y Llyfriddfaeth a Llyfriddfaeth yn gallu ei ddweud i'r byd a'r byddwyr a'r byw i'r byd, ac mae'n gweithio'r byddwyr i'r byd. Mae'n gweithio'r bobl, ysgrifennu o'r ddweud i'r gael, sy'n ymgynnu'n ei wneud i gael yma i'r gwasanaethau, cyfleidiaeth auron, i eich cyfleidiaeth yma i gyd yn ddechrau'i gweithio'r gwaith aill yn ddiwrnodig. H1A ac ymweld i gyfleidiaeth yma o ddiwrnodig cyfleidiaeth auron. Ond, rydym wedi cael eu gwahodau o ddotrgym iawn i'w amdechrau'u cyfleidiaeth, ddwyllfa cyfrifol, ddiwrnodig cyfrifol, a chael ei wathol fuil dros yw'r cyffredin Children's I'm really very much looking forward to listening to the debates, and this has been the case at previous big green challenge events. I'm sure that I will learn many new things, actually. Joining me on the judging panel today, we have Mike McKenzie, MSP for the Highlands and Islands, we have Neil Caldwell, managing director at Artemis, intelligent power limited and Greg Clarke, cyd-genioír dyg yn ysgoledig cyd-genio i Gwyl Llywodraeth sy'n fawr ac rydyn nhw'n fawr. Nid oeddi'ch meddwl i byddwch yn cyd-genio i'r hosedd neu oedd y tornau Llywodraeth. Heather Reed, OBE i ysgoledig BBC Scotlandol, cyfrannu armaír bod ni, a oedd fel gwrsodd, cyrraedd wedi gwneud yn ffanties yng nghydwch heather. Heather's yn gweithio i'r blynyddo ar y cyfrannu cyflau tîm mewn ddylliannol. Mae oedd yn gweithio i gael i gael i gael i gael i ni, i gael i gael i'r gweithio i eich gorfod o'r cyrgynnegol ddefnyddiau. Rydyn ni'n hi gael i eich cyd-degyntiau arieddau o feddwl mewn cywraedd a'r ysbyt yw i gael i gael i gael i gael i gael i gael iaith, a oedd bynnag entwinech y byd annomol aethu yn cael eich hydraedd amgylch iaith ac byddwn ni'n fydd yn effeithio eich cyd-degyntiau i hefyd i hefyd, i fynd i chi yw hwyl困adau na'r ystafell yw rhai? Rwy'n meddwl i'w ysbyt ar y cyfrifiad yma, sy'n credu yn ei chyfrfiadau'r cyfrifiadau. Dynadau'r dilyn yn Arthymys. Mae'r bwysig i ddweud pen tarwg cyfrifiadau ar Arthymys yw'r iawn profiau wirionedd. Yr hyfryd y gallai arlawn gynnig iawn, am dweud gennymau ymddangos rhannol ymddangos ar yr enghreff. Isi ar y prif iawn, mae'n gweithio at id машf yn argymudd The greatest depth of understanding of renewable technology, and I'm really looking forward to hearing from Neil later when he presents this prize, because I think he will have lots of inspiring messages for you. So, all that remains for me to do is to wish all our finalists the very best of luck. It's a fantastic achievement to be here at all, so we're very delighted to welcome you. Rwy'n fawr, Iintaith, oedden nhw'n blawd iawn i hefyd yn cael ei geisig. Maen nhw'n blawd iawn i'r oeddwn i'w arddangosol gyda Llywodraeth, a hyn o'ch fawr i'r gwnrim hyn o ag yw. Mae hwn i'n fawr i'n enghraifftanol hwn i'r ffasigol, i ffylloedd i chi яwngraith i'r wathryd i gael i'r amser a mytroligys i gael efo yr benach, ac iol i gael i'r arddangosol a'r angen meddwlon. i chi i gaen nhw i fwy chyflwyd y maen nhw i'n mi ar gyferyngau. Rheswm y clywed yn gweithio a gydag ar gyfer y maen nhw i'n fwy gydag'i lle ac oedd oedd Scotland yn ei unrhyw gilydd pethau. Rwy'n mynd i chi i gyfer yr unrhyw gilydd yn gyfosydd ei shefafi ar gynglwys ahog. Rwy'n teimlo i gynnwys rai eisiau i gynglwys grwp eich ffynol ac yw poetryl to see renewable energy in action, and today we have with us Nairne academy, Milburn academy, Lossiemouth high school, Charleston academy, Portree high school, Hermitage academy, Allness academy and King UC high school. Before we get started, I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank MSP Mike McKenzie for sponsoring the grand final of the big green challenge, which means it's possible to be here at the Scottish Parliament today, which is such a suitable venue and a great experience for all of us. And I'd also like to thank our sponsors, SSC renewables and Mitsubishi heavy industries Europe, because your support is very much appreciated. Now there will be three rounds in our event today. There'll be a quarter final, the semi-final and then to decide our overall winner, the grand final. In the quarter final stages we'll hear four debates and the four highest scoring teams from this stage will then go through to battle it out in the semi-final round, which will be this afternoon. And then the two highest scoring teams from this round will then go head to head in a final showdown to decide the winner of our grand prize, which as I said is a trip to see renewable energy in action. Now each round has a different motion and the motion for the first round, as you know, is this house believes that Scotland should continue to lead the way in marine energy technology. So we have our first two teams on the floor and that's Nairn and Milburn academy. And for the motion we'll have Nairn academy, so Nairn academy will be proposing the motion today and that's Matthew McVey, William Campbell, Graham Squires and Lucy Beaton. And in the opposition we have Milburn academy, who are Freya Grant, Kira Douglas, Isabel Dike and Iona Wilson. And I believe our reserves are not sitting with us, so we have our three principal debaters sitting at the table. So in a moment I'm going to invite the proposition to open the debate but first let me remind you all of the format. The teams are going to take turns to argue their case, which I'm sure they will do very convincingly. The first two speakers are going to define the motion and introduce their arguments for the proposition and the opposition. The final two speakers will sum up their team's arguments in an attempt to convince us that they are right. For the first two sets of speakers, after the first minute of their speech, we're going to sound a bell and this indicates that the debate is open for points of information, so that means that a member of the opposite team, if they think that the speaker is ignoring an important point, can stand up and say point of information. If the speaker then says no thanks, you have to sit down again. But if they say yes please, you can make your point briefly and that means no longer than 15 seconds to make your point of information. Remember, you can get extra points for offering those points of information. We will sound another bell when there's one minute left to go of all the speeches. First bell will be when you're a minute in and that means that your points of information are then allowed to be made but then when you've got one minute left another bell will sound. No points of information can then be made after that bell and it also helps you to time your speech because with about 20 seconds to go, I will be standing up here to let you know that you should be winding up and coming to a conclusion. So, before we get started, can I just remind everyone to switch off your mobile phones or make sure that they're on silent, which I did just before I got up here. I would also like to wish all the teams good luck and I'm really looking forward to hearing how your debates go and we are now ready, if you are already, on both sides here to begin the first debate. So, from there, I'd like to invite the first speaker to open the debate for the proposition. No, you can stay where you are. Is that right? No, he's coming over here. Sorry. You are. You're right. You're coming over here. You keep me right. Good morning, Madam Chairman, judges, fellow debaters, ladies and gentlemen. It gives me great pleasure to start off the big green challenge quarter final debate today, here in the amazing Scottish Parliament. Today, we are proposing the motion. This house believes that Scotland should continue to lead the way in marine energy technology. We consider leading the way to mean Scotland being a world leader in the design and use of this technology and we define marine technology as those using tidal streams and waves. Then, I'll look at the history of this technology to now. My teammate, Mr Campbell, will give you some current inside views on it and look to the future. A future which is bright, a future which is green and wet and I'm not talking about slime here. Mr McVeigh will round things off for us and hopefully he'll persuade you to support the motion. So, the motion says that we should continue to lead the way. So, let's look back at Scotland's record in marine technology and see where we have come from. Did you know that harnessing wave power was conceived and born here in Edinburgh by the father of wave power, Stephen Salter, in 1974? This is nothing new, Ms Grant. That's even before my parents were born. Salter invented the Edinburgh or Salter's duck, which faces into the waves, bulbs up and down and the pendulum inside swings back and forward, generating electricity. Moving forward to 1998, one of Salter's own students, Richard Ym, developed Palomys, which looks a bit like a huge, bright red metal sea snake, which rides the waves and the movement of the sections is converted into electricity. It was trialled at Emac in Orkney and Palomys became the first commercial wave generator in the world, conceived, designed and built in Scotland, led by us. In 2012, Richard Ym cut the saltire prize medal. Alex Salmond said that he has made a huge contribution to the wider wave energy and renewable sector through his active engagement across industry and government. Richard's drive, ambition and vision should be an inspiration to many young people who are considering careers in engineering, science and the energy industry. Mr Douglas, how can you not agree with celebrating this on-going Scottish success and renewable? He is a positive role model for young people like us and gives us hope and jobs for the future. And now I come to the reason why we should continue to lead the way. It's us, jobs for the future, but it's not Scotland that's getting the jobs. It's more commonly been giving away to Japanese companies. OK. Who better to tell you than Richard Ym himself? OK, he couldn't make it today, but here's what he said. Wherever you take the time to look across this exciting new sector, you can see exceptional individuals working together as one team to deliver on the win-win of clean energy and the economic development opportunities that marine energy represents. Our sector has a unique cohesiveness, forged by experience that working together gives us and an output that is much greater than some of the parts. So is this a lot of fluffy white foam of spin and hype? No, it is reality and it's not just pelvis. Right now there is a rough tidal turbine in Orkney, the limpetone isle. Mr Campbell will tell you more and the benefits they can bring in many areas, jobs, fuel poverty and the environment. Here in Scotland we have a vast potential on marine renewables. We owe it to the rest of the world to develop this renewable technology. We owe it to ourselves to continue to lead the way. Madam Chairman, I beg to propose. Thank you very much for opening our debate at Nairn. Now just to clarify again on the points of information, you need to stand up and say point of information and then pause and then the other team will either say yes please or no thanks. So don't say anything until the person who is speaking either allows you to or doesn't allow you to. So that was our first test of the points of information. So next time we'll do it. So stand up and then say loudly point of information and then we will take it from there. Okay, can I now invite the first opposition speaker? Oh, we're going to stay at our seats now. Okay, right, we're definitely just going. This is exactly how the Parliament works, isn't that right, Mike? Yes, exactly how the Parliament works. We now are going to have everyone staying at their seats. Okay, and I do want people to stand up when they're speaking or sit down and say stay seated. Stay seated, stay seated so that the cameras are going to be working and make sure that you're on the TV. So you are now going to outline your case, Milburn, and stay seated. Okay, member points of information, you will stand up to attract attention. Okay, and then if there's a yes please or a no thanks you will sit down and make your point of information. Okay, so it's just so that we get all the technology working correctly and everybody can see each other. It will make it much clearer for you to see if there's a point of information. So I am now going to invite the first opposition speaker to outline their case from Milburn. Adam Chair, fellow debaters, esteemed judges and members of the audience, my name is Freya Grant and today this house believes that Scotland should not continue to lead the way in marine energy technology. To begin, let me define my team's views on the motion. We believe that the motion at hand can be regarded as Scotland going through with an unsensical notion to become a leader in introducing wave, tidal and offshore wind power as a worldwide source of energy. I'll be presenting the truth about the expensive hidden costs of wave and tidal power technology, the benefits of not leading the way in order to learn from our forerunner's mistakes and how we can benefit from improving our already functioning sources of energy, before my colleague Kyra will be discussing the effect that Scotland's pride of being first has on this country's livelihood and what damage may be done to wind and tidal sites. Before my second comrade Isabel will summarise our collected arguments and conclude the debate. Graham, my team does not deny that renewables are the way forward, but the price of marine energy is already increasing. To my first point, wave and tidal power are relatively new technologies, therefore they have not been tried and tested as well as wind, hydro and biomass in order to succeed as a regularly used source of energy in Scotland. With that in mind, projects cannot be developed without substantial funding from the Government and such projects have already attempted and failed. Despite what the proposition may believe, tidal plants are intermittent, meaning that the wave generates power at irregular intervals. Why would we want to lead the way with an unreliable source of power? Yes, the wind may not always blow for wind power, but wind farms are already playing a major role in our energy security. As are hydro plants, and with processes such as pumped storage, our money should be centred around improving these immensely popular sources of power. Surely, Madam Chair, a more intelligent plan would be for us to let another country lead the way into harnessing wave energy as a source of power. It may sound too safe and too sensible to the reckless views of the proposition, but, in doing so, our precious country could learn from the mistakes that are made in the process. Before focusing on wave power, Scotland should continue with hydro plants and wind farms, becoming world-renowned for harnessing those sources of power as our main energy source. Scotland could become a leading country in that aspect, but if we use tidal power, who knows what dangers could lie ahead? What would happen if the offshore wave plants broke down? As it is to introduce those plants, the process of disposing of them would be high in cost and an inefficient, useless and downright petty time waster. To conclude, Scotland should be improving its current sources of power, rather than pursuing another impossible project. Madam Chair, today the Southland implore you to repudiate the proposition's absurd and ludicrous belief that Scotland can continue to lead the way in marine energy technology. Mankind has already destroyed 80 per cent of our marine habitats. If what pebble affects its fragile ecosystem, then what about these monstrous power stations? I now call on the second speaker to make the case for the proposition from Nairn. Good morning. Madam Chairman, judges, ladies and gentlemen, my colleague Mr Squires just gave you a bit of background about marine energy, and I'm going to give some expert views and look to the future. So I'm going to look at a few current marine projects, their potential future, and how they can benefit Scotland if we continue to lead the way. We have contacted the RWE Enology, one of the five big European energy suppliers. Their hydro and marine development manager gave us his words on his work since 2008. Tidal Stream is ahead of wave technology, although both are a single device, prototype stage. It's a predictable source for power generation, unlike wind and solar. The big part of scaling up is the technical side of undersea cable connections and power corrections within the devices. The main markets at the moment are in the UK and France, so why would we want anyone else to take the lead in this development? It's like Usain Bolt, deliberately slowing down on what in Johan Blake, when the hundred metres, madness. The Pentland Firth has some of the fastest moving tidal currents in the world, 25 per cent of Europe's potential. At the moment, Scotland only gets 0.3 of its electricity from marine renewables compared to 68 per cent for wind. You have to agree, there is room to grow there. Fergus Ewing, the Scottish Energy Minister, in February, granted consent to May Gem Ltd to develop the largest tidal turbine array in Europe and the first commercial project off the shores. It can nearly produce 2 gigawatts of power, more than a nuclear power station, and have to power half of Scotland. Mr Squire has also mentioned the giant Voith turbine at EMEC. When fully operational in 2017, the array will power 42,000 homes. That's more than four times the orcney itself. When the oil runs out, it can provide new jobs there. 25 per cent of Scottish homes are in full poverty, doubled from a decade ago, and a stagger of 58 per cent on western aisles. If marine schemes were built there, it would help them by giving them jobs, cheap green electricity and more tourism. 200,000 people already work in Scotland for tourism, and marine power will just draw more in. So don't tell me, Ms Grant, that there will be put off quite the opposite. Scotland alone has 58 sites that could have the potential to double as information centres, employing individuals in a range of tourism positions as well as increased hotels, restaurants and so on. Fine. What about the effects of marine renewables on the environment? Well, on a global scale, that will help reduce CO2 emissions and slow climate change, but what about the concerns for the local environment, you may say? Well, you may have actually heard of Greenpeace, a worldwide organisation that puts the health of our planet first. They support marine renewables, mostly the tidal stream turbines. If anyone was going to kick up a fuss, it would be them, and guess what? They haven't. We would argue that, for many areas of sea, stopping boats in deep-sea trawlers going in certain parts of the sea would hugely benefit the ecosystems. In a no-take zone off Arran, where the fishing is banned, the seabeds have been regenerated and biodiversity has been restored. Now, don't be misplaced about the stories of whales and dolphins being killed by the turbine spinning. Basically, the tidal flows are so strong that their noise overwhelms the animal, a bit like the wind in your ears when you're cycling. They aren't going to swim into them. They're intelligent creatures, they can detect fins underwater far further away than any human, and fish are so small, they'll just get carried along in the underwater eddies, like me in the Wild Water Channel in the swimming pool. I'm not going to die. For any installation, there's always a careful assessment of where they are being cited. All companies have to carry out an environmental risk management and follow the circle of operate, monitor, adapt, review and so on. We don't want to harm anything. We want to improve the planet. The team from Milburn is blindly going against the flow of overwhelming evidence that Scotland should continue to lead us the way in this area. Ladies and gentlemen, support the motion. Okay, thank you very much and I'm now going to call on the second speaker to make the case for the opposition from Milburn. Madam chair, esteemed judges, fellow debaters and members of the audience. My name is Kyra Douglas and I, along with my colleagues, Freya Grant and Isabel Dyck, do not believe that Scotland should continue to lead the way with marine energy technology. My brilliant colleague Freya has already discussed with you the expense that leading the way in marine renewable technologies would cost Scotland and perhaps damage its future as a prosperous nation. I will inform you of the unprecedented effect that aiming to lead the way in marine technology will and is already bringing to the security of our energy and to Scottish people's livelihoods. First, however, I feel that I must refute those points that were made by the second speaker for the proposition William Campbell. William, you said that dolphins and whales would not go into the turbines and it overwhelms the animals but by overwhelming these animals it makes them want to avoid these areas and it means that they'll move away from Scottish shores meaning we'll lose a lot of our well-valued tourism. You also said that it creates a lot of jobs but actually it is not Scottish companies that are investing marine energy, it's Japanese companies, American companies, Korean companies. So, to my first point, by building marine energy technology such as offshore wind turbines, wave and tidal projects, we may actually be affecting the livelihood of many people living in an area. Fishing communities, men and women whose ancestors have all made a living catching the fish that is such a massive part of the Scottish diet are hugely impacted by these projects. Wave and tidal close to the shore are a huge hazard for fishermen and make it unsafe for them to fish in these areas. The proposition is so blinded in their goal of leading the way in this technology, of being first in the race, that they would disregard thousands of people working in the fishing industry. For these people, fishing isn't just a job, it's a way of life. Are you the proposition really going to destroy all that for the sake of your pride? Fishing industries aren't the only example. A huge project in Calria had to be completely redesigned recently because, as it was, it posed a risk to the many boats that passed through the already dangerous waters. If one of these boats hit a submerged tidal turbine, it would damage both the turbine and the boat and there would be a danger that fuel would be spilled, affecting the whole ecosystem around the area. These problems have meant that the company had to completely redesign their whole project and spend much more time than it originally planned. By rushing in the first place, they ended up taking more time than necessary. Those projects are sometimes so over-budget that they end up being abandoned altogether. Madam Chair, if you were to take a trip to see the Limpid project on the island of Islay, you would find that it had been abandoned for two years when the company working on it went into administration. This eyesore sits in a crevice, which was once a rock face, excavated so that the project could fit. Do you really want to see our Scotland, covered in the discarded waste of experimental sites? There will be still places around the ocean to fish, so why are you focusing on that one main bit? It is well known that fishing places affect massively, and a lot of the places that are the best for tidal places are the same places that are the best for our fishing areas. The companies that the Scottish Government is handing out money to are often not even Scottish. Why would an Irish, German, American, Japanese or Korean company care for Scotland? The answer is that they do not. They just want the money that only our Government is willing to spend using Scotland like a testing site before they unveil the finished product. The damage caused to our fishing industry, our boats and our ecosystems is of no concern to them. They just want to ensure that they make enough profit to keep themselves afloat. In the propositions haste to become the leading country in marine technology, they have not actually thought about the consequences of what they are doing. They are so desperate to stay ahead. The race to be first is not at all beneficial. Surely if we were to go ahead and keep continuing on with leading the way in renewable energy, surely as we are a small nation, maybe other nations may follow. Maybe we might not be doing this in vain. Maybe it will eventually come out at the other end being good. Obviously renewables are good, but I am saying that marine renewables are not. Did you know that the price of marine renewables is increasing while all the other renewable energy sources are decreasing? The companies feel forced to go from small-scale models to huge megawatt turbines in only one or two steps and then find out that their whole design is flawed. If there was not the pressure to move so quickly, then they could spend more time testing to discover the flaws and then fix them before it is too late and too expensive to do so. Running out of fossil fuels is an international problem and needs an international solution. Country should work together to solve this, rather than Scotland rushing ahead in the game and then encountering problems. If we went along with the positions plan, Scotland would be like the child who sprints at the start of a 5K race and then realises after 200 metres that they are too exhausted to continue. This is why, Madam Chair, esteemed judges and members of the audience, we beg you to oppose the absolutely absurd motion that Scotland should continue to lead the way in marine energy technology. Thank you very much, Milburn. We are now going to move on to the summations. Just to remind you that there are no points of order, points of information during the summations, and you each will have your third speaker's five minutes. First of all, I call on the third propositions speaker to sum up their case from Neon. Madam Chair, we are nearing the end of the debate and I firmly believe that you should support the motion. You have heard my teammates define the motion and I am here just to tie the ribbon around this watertight parcel. Mr Squire took you back to the start of marine technology 40 years ago with steam, salt and his ducks. The baton has now been handed down to Richard Jem and his company, Pelamis, who continue to lead the way in-wave generators, getting some world firsts in. Other companies have invested heavily in researching and trialling tidal flow methods leading the way. Ms Douglas, you said that the turbines will overwhelm the animals and it will make them move, but this may be good because if they keep focusing on one area they may eventually have nothing left there and they may go away. There may have been other areas that have been taken away by others, so at least that way they can keep fertilising the ground on all areas. Being a world leader in an area empowers Scotland in so many ways, from the young people like me that are encouraged to study STEM projects, to students who are building careers in marine energy and providing more jobs in Scotland. It does not matter that this is a new area. Scotland has a world reputation for pioneering science and technology, nothing ventured, nothing gained. The junior salt art prize has just been awarded to S1 to 3 pupils from Sunday School in Orkney for developing a marine device suitable for Scottish waters. Where will they be in 10 years' time, leading the field? That is why Skills Scotland has supported it too. I choose marine. Locally, our river Nairn is deep enough for Salters Ducks. Visually, you cannot really see anything but a mere speck. They do not take long to put in and they are easy to move. As for all over Scotland, there are rivers, so we have vast amounts of majority for this technology to go in. Ms Douglas, the Government report was old news years ago. The Government acknowledges that Scotland is leading the way in renewables. The DEC report in December listed the funding being given by Scottish Government, which is worth more than £1 million. Ms Douglas, do not be negative, do not be defeatist. To quote the great JFK, we choose to do things not because they are easy but because they are hard. Marine renewables are the hard option but one of the best. The Government will fund Star Wars films being made in the UK. Why not fund renewables? May the tidal force be with you? The Atlantis hub is being set up in Edinburgh to create a global centre of excellence. The grant funding will reduce the cost and risk of the technology. That supports companies at the start. Then they can get it up and running commercially, invest and make profits from it and even pay back the Government loans in the future. As Mr Squire said, the future is green and wet. There is a vast majority for marine renewables, as I have said. There are long coastlines. There are all the islands. A choice of Irish sea, North Sea or Atlantic ocean. 25 per cent of Europe's potential. And I have to meet half of Scotland's needs. As Mr Campbell said, only 0.3 per cent electricity is generating this way, compared to 68 per cent of longshore wind farms. Wind has been used most relatively quickly and easy to set up, but we are not looking for the quick fix. We are looking to long-term. Mr Campbell told you that although marine renewables have the highest cost at the moment, they are in the trial phases and soon, as things are scaled up, prices will drop. Do not believe me. Look at what happened to solar panels. In the last 35 years, their price has dropped by 99 per cent. The only cost, one in a hundredth, of what they did. Tidal force technology is totally hidden more than 20 metres deep, so they will not interfere with yachts and wind surfers and so on. Madam Chair, why do we choose marine? There are more opportunities, more jobs, more tourists, and it is better for the environment than wind or so forth. Marine is like the toddler of renewables, wind, the temperamental teenager, hydro and geothermal, the reliable dad, which has the most potential, marine. Going back to Stephen Salter, who was ahead of his time, he recently said that it is a bit like someone saying in 1905 that they had a really good idea for a huge aircraft, like the Airbus A380, when people believed that black planes would not fly. But we can now build that Airbus. We can harness the ways and the tides. We have the technology. We can do it. We can continue to lead the way. Madam Chair, judges, ladies and gentlemen, I beg to propose. Thank you very much indeed to Nairn for proposing the motion. Finally, I am going to call on the third Opposition speaker to sum up and to close the debate. Over to Milburn. Imagine an era when a seaside holiday would not include fish and chips. This would be the case if we went forward with the aforementioned motion. Something as simple as fish and chips would no longer be possible as the fish may be killed or poisoned by the leakage of a wave power generator. They may not be catchable as the fishing boats may not be able to manoeuvre around offshore wind farms. There would also be a lack of tourists due to the scenery being ruined. This would all result in the chippies being put out of business. Now, of course, I have only taken a very niche subject. Just imagine scaling this up to encompass all businesses. The results would be catastrophic. In fact, the Government may not even be able to help these businesses as they would have cast the little money that we have left away to put up those offshore wind farms and others such like. Madam Chair, I am here before you today to encourage you to see sense and oppose the mythical motion that Scotland should continue to lead the way in marine energy technology. My colleagues Freya and Kyra have already given wonderful speeches, and I am sure that you will agree with me when I say that, after hearing our points, there is only one logical argument to follow. That is ours. I would like to start by addressing some of the proposition's particularly preposterous points. William, you use quotes such as prototype. Who can honestly say that that should give our nation energy security? You stated that it would be madness not to lead the way. It is more like madness to do so, as it would involve a large amount of money being cast away. You can see yourself that poverty is a problem. However, can you see that such a risky investment is to the detriment of the third of children who live in Glasgow in poverty? Matthew, you spoke to Kyra about fertilising new areas. A lot of the habitats and things like that have taken centuries to form. That is how species get wiped out. You also said that it creates jobs when a lot of companies are now going bust and people are losing their jobs in marine energy. It is not secure. You said that it has 25 per cent of Europe's potential when wind power—ontro wind power—has a third of Europe's potential. You said that the generators are totally hidden, but guess what else is hidden? The costs. There are so many extra repairs and check-ups that have to be done offshore, and they cost massively. Now on to our first point. Wave and tidal energy are relatively new technologies. They are ill-researched and hard to predict. Why should we wade in there now in order to lead the way? We should be wise and wait to see how our forerunners' endeavours go. We can take from this their mistakes to learn from, the new advances that they have made, and proof that it is viable is a lot of money to be gambling with. Now on to my second point. Madam Chair, have you considered the sheer number of projects that are running over time and over budget? In fact, many run over to such an extent that they are then cancelled mid-project. Another reason why projects are often cancelled is due to the idea of a race to be first. It forces companies to skip steps and move too fast. There have been cases where a beautiful rock face has been excavated to house a generator, only to discover that there is no money left in the budget or that the generators are faulty. The project is then discontinued, leaving a half-built money pit that scars the landscape. To my third point, wave power is incredibly intermittent. Although the proposition will tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that our tides will always be in motion, it is not the tides that the generators solely rely on. They rely on large waves, something that is very hard to predict. It could be a time of high demand for energy and there could be no large waves, or conversely, there could be an enormous wave that could overload the grid, creating power cuts right across the nation. Now to our next point. The effects following this motion would have on the fishing industry are catastrophic. As Caraway and I have already stated, offshore machinery makes fishing and shipping near impossible. Of course, that means that whole neighbourhoods' livelihoods could be gone in an instant. It is vital that we do not let this motion pass. It will wreak havoc with the fragile environment and the unstable economy. Some members of the audience, esteemed judges, fellow debaters and, of course, you madam chair, we implore you to oppose the motion. Thank you very much, Milburn, and the debate has now closed. I would like to thank both Nairn and Milburn for going first, which is never the easiest role. I think that you have set an incredibly high standard for everyone else to follow. We now have a 10 minute turn-over. It allows the judges to gather their thoughts. If I could invite Lossy Mouth and Charleston to get ready and to assume your seats either for or against them, we will be starting in 10 minutes.