 I might come down here as well, as long as you can hear me at the back, I'm not as tall as Jamie. But what I want to do is sort of think about how this economy that we've heard really how much it's going to change, how despite all that change and within all that change, who is it going to work for? And is it going to be one that's sustainable, or are we going to have an economic model that is making it harder for our friends and our cousins in other parts of the world to even have a fighting chance at a good life? And really I think I'm going to take it as given that we all share a very broad vision of a socially just world, a sustainable world. But I want to ask the question that despite all the amazing work that is happening in Scotland, the incredible businesses doing really wonderful things, the amazing community projects, the really exciting policy innovation, and I have to say when I'm in Oxfam offices in other parts of the world and I look back at Scotland, it's very easy to be very proud and to tell colleagues, look what's happening in Scotland, you need to learn from this initiative and that initiative. And then you come closer and you sort of see a little bit of the detail and you see that there are some gaps and some inconsistencies. And so what I want to really suggest is that we are, we might share this vision of how the world can be better. And yet we're sort of like these folks here who are doing all the right things going to the gym for half an hour, 45 minutes every morning without fundamentally changing our diet or our lifestyle. So we're dabbling in some good initiatives, but we're not really linking that together, adding it up to create the sort of structural change, those fundamental deep-seated causes that will enable us to create good lives on a sustainable planet for everyone. Fifteen minutes, yeah, go have a go at that. So what I just, and I can say we're really happy to talk to any of you in more depth about this. I'm going to race through some issues, but if anything sparks your interest, do stay in touch. I can send you references and all sorts of further conversations. So just see this as tip of the iceberg. But what I want to raise is a few concepts that seem to be sort of burning in my mind at the moment. The concept of defensive expenditures, failure demand, which anyone who remembers a Christie commission five years ago will be familiar with, and consolation goods. And the extent to which so much of the initiatives that we have at the moment are, yeah, helping people survive, which is so, so important, but ultimately they are preserving this current system that is doing so much harm. So can we imagine an economy that's doing things differently? So first of all, why is it that we are having to do so much defense? Why are we failing so much? Why are we having to engage in all this consolation? And it's because we've got an economy that externalizes so much of its impact. We've got so many economic actors that are structured in a way that causes them to turn a blind eye to a lot of their impacts. And also that's in a negative sense, but also not think more positively and so hence underdeliver a lot of the positive impacts that can come. And thinking particularly a lot of business initiatives here. We've got a lot of our economic measures profoundly misaligned to the sort of communities, the sort of economy, the sort of jobs, the sort of country that we need to see. So basically we are still, despite all the wisdom and all the knowledge and all the ingenuity and all the passion and compassion in Scotland chasing after the wrong goals. And a lot of that has created an economic model that is far from trickling down, is actually rushing up to those at the top. And so some of these externalities that are costing our earth dearly. And you don't need to look far in a year of sort of record heat levels where the bushfire season in places like where I come from is lengthening, starting earlier, lasting longer. We've got massive spiders and wasps invading our kitchens. When Hurricane Harvey and then Irma and now Maria, when it was hearing a story the other day about kids in Delhi, kids from rich families, who they get driven to school in their cars. And to get from the car to the classroom, they have to wear gas masks. So they don't play outside because the air is just so polluted. And then when they get driven home in those cars, the kids and the other members, other people living in Delhi who aren't from such rich families, who at the traffic lights might polish those tinted windscreens. Those people are starting to show signs of what miners in Scotland 100 years ago would have referred to as black lung. And it's just extraordinary. And it's these sort of pressures on the planet that are causing earth system scientists and folks at the Stockholm Resilience Centre to warn us that we are pushing beyond four of the nine planetary boundaries. And part of that is because of so many actors in our economy are turning this blind eye to so many of the impacts. And this is wheeled out a lot, this cartoon. And these fit little folks sitting around the campfire for those at the back who can't see it. And they say, yes, the planet got destroyed, but for a beautiful moment in time, we created a lot of value for our shareholders. And it just sort of sadly talks about how we've got these wrong measures. And we've got governance systems in so many of our businesses that are making, I think, good people do bad stuff. So we'll come back to that in a minute. I want to, every time I talk about the impact on the environment, I want to show this chart just to remind folks who it is who is putting most pressure on the planet. These are some numbers that Oxfam calculated a few years ago in time for the Paris cop. And we looked at by-income deciles globally, who it was who was causing most emissions of carbon. And really crucially, it was by their consumption emissions. So it took into account their actual consumption, not the production that they had essentially offshored. When you bear that in mind when you hear claims of decoupling. But when we talk into account people's consumption emissions, rather ironically, what it yielded is this sort of champagne glass shape showing that the richest 10% from people around the world, so those folks driving, or who own those cars in Delhi that I was just talking about, but also here in the UK and in United Arab Emirates, it's those richest 10%, which include us, who are responsible for almost half of all the climate emissions. Whereas the bottom half of the world's population emit less than 10%. So just remember that when we're talking about who it is who is putting most pressure on the planet. It is front and squarely our lifestyles, our economic models who are doing that damage. And then we've got this economic model that is geared up around the idea of more and more growth. And yet, there are profound incentives built in to the notion of GDP. And this is summed up, I think, so beautifully by the Canadian economists who I've been quoting for years. Because he says it's so better than I could. And I could do a lecture on the problems and the flaws of GDP as a measure of progress. But he says, in GDP terms, the hero is this chain-smoking terminal cancer patient who's going through a divorce and he crashes his car while he's eating a takeaway hamburger because he's texting and he's got a job as an arms dealer. And the problem is that all these activities are going to increase GDP. And yet, this is not the sort of person who we want making decisions about how our economy is structured, how our communities operate, not the sort of person we want to work with. It epitomizes really profoundly, I think, the perverse incentives in GDP. And there's all sorts of other reasons why we want to critique GDP. This is work done by folks at the social progress imperative. And they've created something called the social progress index. It comprises 53 different measures that they define as social progress, things like human rights, opportunities, fundamental determinants of well-being. And they've mapped that on this index, on the y-axis here. And then they've put countries by GDP per capita along the x. Don't worry about the detail. What's really key is that you notice that at beginning stages of economic development, more GDP per capita really, really matters. You increase very sharply up the social progress index. You get more social progress for marginal increases in terms of GDP per capita. But at fairly modest levels, that increase in that improvement starts to tail out. This is a notion that I learned in first year economics of diminishing marginal returns. We're getting diminishing marginal returns in terms of GDP growth to social progress. And just one example to highlight that to you. We've got Plucky-Og Costa Rica here, really doing extraordinarily well in terms of social progress. Compared to South Korea here, very similar levels of social progress and yet a gap in GDP per capita of about $20,000 US dollars a year. Another way of looking at that is something that's been calculated since the 70s, the genuine progress indicator. And that takes GDP and it subtracts out a lot of the bad stuff like pollution or defensive expenditures like cleaning up environmental harm or drinking bottled water because water out of the tap is polluted inequality and then adds in a lot of the good things like volunteering, green space and so on. And colleagues of mine who are based at the Australian National University, Bob Costanza and others have been calculating the genuine progress of various countries around the world for many years. And you can see a fairly consistent increase in GDP per capita, whereas genuine progress as measured by the GPI has been largely flat and the gaps they point to started in 1978 and we could have a conversation about what came then in terms of economic policies to cause that. And one of the big things that is causing genuine progress to flat line is levels of inequality. And Oxfam's been looking at levels of extreme wealth for the last few years and we've started calculating how many billionaires does it take to have as much wealth as the same half as the poorest population around the world? And when we first released this and we were very strategic with these sorts of things we released this report at Davos. So we first did this in 2014, it was 85. 85 people had as much wealth as the poorest half of the population. And that figure went viral, went around the world and we were completely staggered by it. And then we recalculated again the next year it had come down to 80. And we recalculated it last year in 2016 and it had come down to 62. And we had these sort of internal conversations thinking, my goodness, it cannot come down any further, can it? And yet then when we got updated and better figures from Credit Suisse whose material we use, we know more about folks living in poverty in India and China than we did for the previous figures. And what's dire is that the situation is worse. And so when you add up the number of billionaires whose wealth it takes to account for the poorest half of the world's population it is eight men, which is extraordinary. And now obviously that's a global figure but we can't sit back and feel too smug that Scotland's in a better situation. We've had income going to the 1% has been increasing recent years still one in five people are in poverty. And of course that's a relative poverty line. So you might think, well, Catherine works for Oxfam. Poverty in Scotland is not really bad. But poverty in Scotland is a life of food banks. It's a life of shame and stigma. It's a life of not being able to participate in the school. It is extraordinarily bad and it's completely unacceptable and avoidable. So we can't sit back and feel that Scotland's not too bad. And if you look at something like the Palmer ratio for Scotland that calculates the top 10% compared to the bottom 40% we're looking at a ratio of about 9.4, which is dire. And with inequality comes people hiding away from each other. These are pictures that staggered me when I was in South Africa recently of just the extent to which people are hiding away behind barbed wire and laser fences and higher walls. And this is what inequality does. It causes people to retreat into their enclaves, to their online enclaves on their Twitter feed or to their behind their barbed wire to their gated communities. And we know this is just one example of what Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett documented a few years ago in their book, The Spirit Level. And they've got this index of social problems and health problems and it is dramatically worse the more unequal the country becomes. And I'm sure you'll all be familiar with the work of Jerry McCartney at NHS Scotland who's mapped just for Glasgow the changes in life expectancy as you go from the West End to the East End to the extent that every train station that you go to the East, men lose a life expectancy of about two years and it's a gap of 14 years in just a very short space of time. I mean, I live out in the other university, I could run that in about, I don't know, 50 minutes or so. It's not far, maybe that's a bit fast, maybe 90 minutes but it's not far. And yet gaps of 14 years, just staggering. And so we've got these responses to these levels of inequality, to this dire impact on the planet, to a sense of community alienation, people not feeling that their jobs meet their fundamental human needs, their jobs are a life of precariousness lacking in meaning. You know, we are extraordinarily lucky to come to these sort of conversations in our suits and have it as part of our work and part of our professional life because most people are just struggling to scrape by. And so we get this effort to heal and preserve and humanize the current system and this is this resilience agenda where people are told, do some mindfulness, change your thinking, be more present, change how you respond to the situation. We do too much of that and not enough thinking about what are the structures that are keeping people in bad lives and I think it's extraordinarily ironic maybe that in Scott's Gallic, they use the same word for resilient that they use for long suffering. So be very careful when people are talking about the resilience agenda as a coping agenda rather than just actually how can we create a better economy. Let's get through that. And so what we're doing is what Manfred Max Neef who's this wonderful Chilean economist would talk about is we're reaching for pseudo-satisfiers. We're trying to satisfy our need for security with barbed wire and gated communities. We're trying to satisfy our need for identity with shopping and consumerism. We're trying to satisfy our need for happiness and meaning with pills and drugs. And yet we know that actually adjusting to this sort of economy again is coping, it's surviving, it's getting not beyond day to day but it's not turning enough attention to the structures of that economy. And so Herman Daley who used to work for the World Bank so he's not a sort of crazy radical economist, he would say that notion of diminishing marginal returns that we looked at earlier with social progress indicator. He'd say, do you know that's probably, I'm putting words in his mouth, but he'd say that's a benign take on things. What we need to do is have a conversation about uneconomic growth, about how much of what we spend is healing and preserving and cleaning up and consoling because of the nature of the economic model that we've got. And this is sort of I guess the social democratic consensus that we've had over the last few decades. It's a consensus of get the economy to grow bigger but turn a blind eye to a lot of the damage that is done along the way. Just get it to grow bigger and faster because then you can take some of the growth and the economic resources back from that through taxes and you can use them to heal and defend against and console against some of the damage that was done along the way. And the problem is, I don't know where I got this photo of us looking at it this morning. I think the fact that this guy's giving a thumbs up, he's probably Australian. But the problem is this model is extraordinarily expensive. It's putting avoidable demands on the state when the state should be on the front foot, embracing things like Jamie's been talking about creating this flourishing tech sector and helping us adjust to this new brave new world of technology. It's inefficient and it depends on a growing economy but if we take the science of planetary boundaries seriously then we have got to get our heads around redistributing rather than just growing the economic pie. And so I'm sorry you can't see this but it's a litany of figures that give some illustration to the notion of uneconomic growth. Now of course I'll start with the Christie Commission back in 2012 where they estimated that well over 40% of what local authorities spend is due to failure demand because of our uneconomic model. We've got Joseph Roundtree Foundation estimating that in the UK poverty costs the UK almost 80 billion a year. We've got Jules Pretty and his colleagues talking about the negative consumption externalities that cost the NHS 62 billion a year that are driven by things like ill health, mental ill health, diabetes loneliness, cardiovascular diseases. These are things that if we had an economy that looked after people we could avoid. In the US there's this rise of this concept called guard labour. There's an estimate that almost five million people in the US work in these guard labour sectors and it's things like security guards, a lot of police officers, people working in the defence industry. And then of course when we turn our attention to the environment there is, I mean there's any list of numbers that we could look at to put a pound sign on the damage we're doing to the environment. I've got a figure here from UNEP that says the cost of environmental damage because of human activity is almost seven trillion. Bill McKibben tweeted during the week that already this year that the US has spent 17 billion. That must be right, I'll check my notes. 17 billion on fighting wildfires just this year. So I mean it's extraordinary amounts of money that we are spending because we're doing so much harm to the planet and so much harm to people. So how can we do things differently? Now I've mentioned Manfred Maxneef already and I turn to him a lot because I think he nails it so profoundly. What development should be about? If it's not just incremental increases in GDP, let's really go back to basics about meeting fundamental human needs. Now of course we've got this vision laid out by countries in September 2015 where world leaders signed up to the Sustainable Development Goals that they're not perfect but in their totality and with that beautiful underlying mantra of leave no one behind. They point to a very different vision of the future by 2030 than we would want to imagine. And it's extraordinarily wonderful isn't it that Scotland was one of the first nations to sign up to the SDGs. I often visualize it as a doughnut which is where my colleague Kate Rayworth took the idea of planetary boundaries to create this sort of outer layer of an environmental ceiling and added this inner layer of social foundation below which it's unjust to allow human beings to fall below. So that yields this doughnut shape where we need the economy to operate inside there because in there it is safe and just. Let's skip through. Oxfam is increasingly talking about something called the human economy which we might come back to. And we've even got folks like the World Economic Forum with this big chunk of their website talking about how GDP is a poor measure of the health of our economies let alone the prosperity of our society. And there is a litany of literature around the flaws of GDP and yet we hang on to it. And it's already been mentioned a little project Oxfam ran in Scotland a few years ago articulating a different measure of progress that was based on what people really need to live were and what they themselves say. And there's some really great work going on to work with the national performance framework here in Scotland to make it correlate more closely with the fundamental human needs of people and planet. So changing what we measure is really important. But also at the micro level at companies as well. Now Jack Welsh, the former CEO of General Electric he apparently coined the term shareholder value. And now he's warning us that shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world. But I don't want to suggest that I think profit and being a successful viable business is a bad thing. What worries me is when profit and shareholder value is the pure ends in itself. And it puts those blinkers on decision makers because of those internal governance systems that are geared up to deliver profit. What we could do is reconceptualize businesses where profit is a vehicle to another end to. Okay, thank you. Things like benefit corporations and we've got this flourishing of different models of business that are suggesting if we could just put equivalent priorities for businesses, social objectives, environmental objectives, I mean cooperatives are great examples of boring slide isn't it. But this is Mondragon in the Basque region of Spain. And what's fantastic in Scotland is we've got a flourishing of these sorts of initiatives. You know, SKIOS, there's a lot of work and it was announced in the program for government more investment in supporting these sorts of pro-social business models. These is the sort of economy that we need by 2030. There's a lot more of these guys and less of the sort of Jack Welch sort of characters. And we've got to think about how we do work, how we design jobs, how we share. There's, you know, the pretty unhappy elements of work, how we share those tasks, how we renumerate, have renumeration correlated to social value rather than just market power. How we share work in terms of time. And the simple things we can do, like de-taxing labor, you know, shift the tax base to wealth that will change the incentives that people who are designing jobs ultimately face. And then of course, and again, this is an area where Scotland is wonderfully on the front foot, is the circular economy. You know, really moving from that take, make, waste to the circular economy where we cherish things where, I mean, wouldn't it be great if by 2030 the mining companies operating in Scotland could be mining piles of waste rather than the ground itself. You know, getting all that ore that is in piles of discarded mobile phones. This is what the circular economy is about. And again, there's a really nice hints towards that in terms of, you know, we had the drink bottle deposit scheme and how we think about what sort of products we need. There was an article in The Herald on the weekend saying that Scotland is becoming a nation of car sharers and that epitomizes that. We don't need to own a car all the time, but if we could share it with each other, you know, then we still get to our destination, but we make much better use of the sunk cost in building that car. I just wanted by way of finishing go back to that idea of getting it right upstream. Now this is the sort of this social democratic consensus that we have had. This Heal Preserve, this tax, this Grow the Economy Faster tax money out of it and channel it into building these sort of blocks to maybe closing the gap, using building blocks, using our transfers and our welfare system to try and lift people up because those big gaps have been created by the economy. And this is of course important. You know, I wouldn't want to suggest otherwise. I work for a humanitarian focused organization. This is fundamentally important because it helps people survive. But I also think we can do better in terms of removing those gaps and actually not letting those gaps open up in the first place. Challenges, it's not an easy task. And while there is plenty of amazing stuff happening in Scotland, amazing businesses, amazing community organizations, amazing policies, I've already listed a couple of them. There is a big gap between rhetoric and reality and even between the policies themselves and their implementation. We've got selective short-term, long-termism. We're good on infrastructure building, not so good on thinking about other, you know, really upstream root causes. We've got an incoherence in terms of we've had this great ambition around climate change and then we're still talking about reducing air passenger tax and getting every last drop of oil out of the North Sea. There is too much parroting and groupthink around economic orthodoxy. And we were talking earlier around, you know, next time you're in a meeting, play bingo every time someone just says we need more productivity without thinking about what that's productivity is about, who is getting it? And really, in a world of planetary boundaries, do we just need to create more and more stuff? So start, you know, redefining productivity would be a great start. And of course, the grasp of growth. Now, we've got a lot of enlightened policymakers here who have cottoned on to the fact that faster GDP growth is dangerous and unjust because it's not doing the job we wanted it to do. So we're putting some nice adjectives in front of growth. We've got inclusive growth, green growth, shared growth, low carbon growth, sustainable growth, balance growth. And I mean, it's almost getting to the point of low fat, organic growth. But we still can't get ourselves to conceptualize sharing things better, doing things better upstream where we don't need all that growth to heal and console and defend against. So Rob asked me to think about some of those priority sectors. And this is just, I'll finish now, that Scotland is focused on and are they the right ones? And I'd suggest though that, you know, it's not so much the right sectors, but how they operate and who they work for. So if we're thinking about the food and drink sector, will it be one where we're talking about flourishing small local businesses, or are we going to be looking at a situation where we've got these massive multinational companies who kill off small farmers, who throw their weight around on health bodies operated by the government that happens in other constituencies. So we've got to be really careful about how these sectors operate. If it's about creative industries, will they be industries that enable everyone to find their niche, rather than just churning out these little worker bees and sort of identical clones from our universities? And I think, you know, Scotland again has got a good record on that. So I'm optimistic there. Will our sustainable tourism and energy really be serious about sustainability? Will we talk about a frequent flyer levy? Will we talk about recognising that social justice and climate justice demands that we cannot take every ounce of oil out of the North Sea? Will our financial and business services, will they actually be structured in a way to serve the local economy, to serve small, those small farmers that we've talked about, to serve small businesses, to incentivise those pro-social business models, rather than just seeing investment as an opportunity to harness some money and suck it up to the owners of capital? And will those life sciences that we're talking about, will they be at the forefront of driving that transition to a circular economy? And will they use their knowledge that they create for prevention, rather than just healing? And finally, and I am really optimistic here, will our universities teach people to question and to challenge and adapt to the sort of economy that Jamie's laid out? You know, in terms of protecting the person rather than position, rather than holding on to brownfield industries, but helping people see that they will have secure livelihoods. They'll be able to move into new sectors and compassionate individuality, rather than just homo-economicists. Thank you. Thank you, Catherine.