 I'm Anna Macquarie, I work also, sorry about that, and my name is even harder to pronounce even for people in Scotland so I really don't worry about it. I am the museum's officer for the Scottish Archive Research Framework and I worked with Emma Dunia, her tenure as Scarf Project Manager until she left the post in April this year to be followed on by Helen Spencer. I'm delivering this on Emma's behalf because she's not able to be here so what follows are her reflections and perspectives from her time as Scarf Project Manager. So, this point, not very subtly, is making the case for Scotland being part of Europe. Not all of us were in favour of a significant vote that happened two years ago and just to put it into context, Scarf is based there just in Edinburgh in Scotland north of Europe. So there's been lots of reference to Scarf throughout the day which has been great because it's really good to know that it's at the forefront of everybody's mind. But just for a bit, just for Britain to come from us, from the Scarf Project really, is to show that the content is peer reviewed and authored by Top Minds in the Field. It launched in 2012 as a set of reports and questions split by period from the Paleolithic to the present day so it's coming up to the world wars. Over 350 archaeologists and others contributed to text and images and ultimately produced hundreds of research questions about all aspects of Scottish archaeology. The resource was seen as really new and exciting at the time that it was launched given that it was first of its kind for Scotland and the first in the UK to be published as Open Access Website only and not on any kind of hard copy whatsoever. So it was seen as really nice new and shiny when it was invented. Over time Scarf has become embedded in Scottish archaeology with references to it popping up in academic papers, commercial reports and elsewhere including some national school level exam papers. In 2018 it has become commonplace to refer to Scarf, the bright young thing has become part of the establishment. So much so that Scarf is one of the lead bodies we're delivering in 2.1.3 of Scotland's archaeology strategy which has also been referenced here today as well. So as I say, very much part of the archaeology establishment of Scotland now. So we've heard a lot from colleagues from other parts of the UK and this is just to put Scarf into that wider context again. We have one national framework and four regional frameworks, three of which are in Grogysadee like the one that we heard Becky talk about just earlier and World Heritage Site frameworks as well. This is of course just an overview so there are a few variations within that but it helps to put it into the context of the UK as a whole. Sorry it's doing so automatically it's frustrating. There hasn't been any overarching strategy of the research work being carried out hence the variation between the difference in Scotland to the other areas. Significant differences persist between the manner in which research frameworks have been initiated. Who's delivering them, how the findings or results are being disseminated and crucially how they might be updated going forward. Now there's a lot of text on this table and I won't ask you to try and take it all in just now. But really this is just to emphasise the difference from these research frameworks at the top here. And thank you for the updated title Becky because it means that we have mis-referenced your research framework. There have caused it by the old title though it is a surf project or as was our islands are past. But this table is really just to emphasise the differences between each of the regional frameworks that are either completed such as Argyll and Buttes in the furthest left column. And the differences between each of the ones including those which are underway at the moment. The differences include the funding and funding resources, the number and the type of people involved in the consultation and creation, method of dissemination. Some of which are yet to be decided even for projects currently underway and again the means of updating in the future. So as you can see huge variety in all kinds of figures whether it be people, time taken, time allotted for the production, funding costs and also the dissemination of them as well. So just to focus a little bit on RARFA, the regional archaeological research framework for Argyll. This little infographic nicely summarises some of the content that went into it. And this chart on the bottom right shows the content map of the framework as it is on SCARF. This will hopefully help to put it into context so that you are realising that regional frameworks can be somewhat meaningless if you are not familiar with the wider context of what it is that we are talking about. And it also gives a pretty clear indication of just how much work was involved. And this is for what is a relatively small part of Scotland. I mean it still covers the big land mass but it's not a huge massive geographic area. And a bit more detail here on the amount of data that we were dealing with in RARFA. And as you say just one geographic area but the numbers here can speak for themselves. Canmore, which is referenced in the bottom left graph there. If anybody who isn't aware of it is the National Database of the Historic Environment of Scotland. And that references individual sites and archived material. It's something that we're exceptionally lucky to have in Scotland which I realise that not all countries are fortunate enough to have. And it's a huge benefit for this kind of work. What's interesting here, as you notice in the case studies, this is a way that we see as being an easy way to update National SCARF going forward. And that's what we've been saying about it for a while. But even in a relatively newly undertaken research framework. There's still huge disparities between number of case studies depending on chapter and so on and so forth. Even though that can be a nice sort of bite-sized piece of work for people to do. So another one where there's lots and lots of text here. But again just to give an indication of the amount of work that was undertaken by SCARF staff during the creation of this. So this wasn't even any of the work which the museum body undertook themselves. But rather just SCARF staff time. It's a huge amount of work. Some points to consider might be things... I've skipped one there. Funding has indicated each of the current research frameworks are hugely variable. And all sorts of different issues that come as part of that. Contributors. I like the reference here to strong personalities. It's certainly something that we have come across in SCARF ourselves in different ways. And always will going forward. And it's hard if you're in a field with a lot of established experts. But how do we get those new contributors and experts coming up and getting their voices heard too? Publication. Always a tricky one. Hard copy versus digital. One only. Both different sort of reasoning and desires for either as well. Of course the time and the cost that those required as well. SCARF has been mentioned so I won't go into this too much. But it is a partnership project. It's been contracted out to a commercial organisation to deliver. But has very much had the local authority archaeologists working on that. Let's catch up with myself here. And thank you to Dan for this which is a portal which is being used or being developed. This is the back end of it as of a few days ago. Upon which material will be made available following the SCARF project. So a different way of disseminating the information compared to any of the other research frameworks that have been happening. So some conclusions. A lot of these are things which you'll have been covered already. So it's not necessarily something we need to go into too much just now. But lots of things to think about. And for external people I think the museum's reference was for my benefit there. Because I know museums worse than a heart. But again these are all things which people who are involved with research frameworks will have come across before publication. Images we can make things look good as well as read well too. With a bit of extra consideration. So this was Emma's point that we're working in Edinburgh but really we're part of a much wider world. Why can't we connect our research and do things which are really well linked up together. So thank you.