I do not accept that at all. I argue strongly that the evidence from all countries and across time is that, when we cut taxes, the detriment to revenues is immediate and real, the economic outcomes are highly uncertain and, if they transpire, they are long term.
I will work though each of the mechanisms that you mentioned. On the small business bonus scheme, the point that we made at the time is that the average benefit is about £1,400. To be frank, if the difference between a business going to the wall and that not happening is £1,400, the business is not viable, and public policy should not attempt to save such businesses. It sounds brutal, but that is an important point.
We have had this debate with ministers, including the First Minister, for a number of years. We have called for evidence to be produced that describes to us in detail the benefits that the small business bonus has brought to the economy, but that has never been forthcoming. We have provided evidence. To be frank, it is now somewhat out of date but, for the first two or three years of the scheme, we provided our own evidence and it seemed to show that there had been no benefit whatsoever for Scotland relative to the rest of the UK.
On air passenger duty, we have heard a number of times in the past couple of years Edinburgh and Glasgow airports talking about how passenger numbers have been growing exponentially, and that is before air passenger duty has been cut. I would be surprised if there was a significant employment dividend from cutting it further.
On corporation tax, I just do not accept that the modelling is credible but, even if we accept that, the additional 27,000 jobs over 30 years would be a tiny benefit, to be frank. Again, it is the tyranny of large numbers—27,000 sounds a big number until it is properly put in context and, when it is, the benefit is marginal in the extreme.