2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01554)

No plans in the near future.

I will take us back to the Institute for Fiscal Studies report, which the First Minister says we should quote properly and in the full context. Yes, the IFS did say on page 8 of the report the words that the First Minister read out, but the very next line stated:

“But doing this might be ill advised.”

Let us quote the IFS properly and in the full context. That does not get us away—[Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer:

Order. Let us hear Ruth Davidson, please.

It does not get us away from the central projection, which is that an independent Scotland would start life with a £5.9 billion black hole in its finances over the first few years.

To continue the theme, I ask the First Minister: is the IFS wrong?

I am not going to let Ruth Davidson away with that—unfortunately for her—because I have the full quotation here. It says:

“In this case, an independent Scotland would, in principle, be able to cut spending or increase taxes by less than if it remained part of the UK.”

The report goes on to say that that “might be ill-advised” because it might be better to borrow less or to save more. Only in the topsy-turvy world of the Conservative Party could a fiscal advantage, in that scenario, be presented as a weakness.

It wasnae a great start for Ruth Davidson, in quoting the IFS, to stop before she put her remarks in context. When she asks her second question, will she confirm that what I have said about the quote on page 8—

Ruth Davidson rose—

Read out the full quote: the bit where it says that it might be wiser to take that “stronger fiscal position” and, instead of spending more or cutting less than we will be able to do if we stay in the UK, to invest for the future or to borrow less.

Read out the full quote, and then we will answer the second question.

In answering the question, the First Minister once again chooses to pick one scenario and ignore—[Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer:

Order.

And ignore the IFS’s central projection, which is a £5.9 billion black hole in the finances.

It is not just the IFS report with which the First Minister wants to show us a shiny thing in the corner and lead us away. This week, we have heard from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, following on from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, the Centre for Public Policy for Regions, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, named experts such as Professor Brian Quinn and Professor John Kay, the British Insurance Brokers Association and the David Hume Institute.

All those organisations are raising questions about the First Minister’s economic case for independence. All are experts in their field, and none has an axe to grind, but they have been dismissed, disparaged or ignored by the First Minister. They should not feel special because, as we have just heard, he does that to his closest adviser, Alex Bell.

The First Minister may stand here today and say, “I’m a wonderful person”, but a really unpleasant picture is building up of a bunker mentality and a man who refuses to be challenged, to take advice or to engage at all. How can it be that all those experts just do not get it, while the First Minister alone is always right?

I think that everyone knows why Ruth Davidson did not want to read out the rest of the quote. Listing all those things that I am meant to do to experts was, given that Ruth Davidson started by not giving the full quote from—and perhaps misquoting—one of the reports, rather an unfortunate way for her to make her case.

I thought that the report summary from David Phillips this morning was very fair-minded; he says, of course, that the IFS drew on the OBR’s projections. We have discussed before what is wrong with the OBR projections. They forecast an oil price that is lower than everybody else and substantially lower than that forecast by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which gives us the alternative figures.

We can forecast as much as we like, but we know what has actually happened over the past few years. We know that, between 1980 and 2011, Scotland ran an average net fiscal surplus of equivalent to 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product while the UK ran a deficit of 3 per cent. We also know that, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, since 2000 Scotland’s public finances have been estimated to be somewhat stronger than those of the UK.

Those are things that have actually happened. In that entire period of history, the Conservative Party was never once prepared to acknowledge that, year after year, Scotland was in relative surplus with the rest of the United Kingdom—that we could have invested more, borrowed less or saved more according to the fiscal position—so why on earth should we now accept from the Conservative Party forecasts about the future?

I will make two final points. First, I would not rely too much on the OBR. It is forecasting that the UK will be in fiscal deficit for the next 50 years—if Ruth Davidson wants to accept its forecasts.

Secondly, as far as people showing loyalty is concerned, I refer to the remarks in The Scotsman of 23 May from Murdo Fraser, who said that the Scottish Tory party

“in its current manifestation is” not

“the best vehicle”

for its supporters,

“trapped in a vicious cycle of declining electoral support”.

That is a Tory MSP. If you are not even prepared to read out a quotation that you introduced, it is hardly surprising.

The Presiding Officer:

We have a constituency question from Kenneth Gibson.

The First Minister will be aware that the Z Hinchcliffe & Sons Ltd factory in Dalry in my constituency is set to close. Z Hinchcliffe was founded in 1776 and produces quality yarn, which is sought after by some of the most prestigious fashion houses in the world. Sadly, the company feels that it now has too much capacity for its market.

Although a few employees will be offered a transfer to Denby Dale in Huddersfield, the Dalry closure will lead to the loss of up to 115 jobs. Will the First Minister ensure that the Scottish Government works with the directors of Z Hinchcliffe & Sons to offer any assistance that it can to mitigate potential job losses and assist those employees whose jobs are under threat?

I share the member’s concern at the developments in respect of Z Hinchcliffe & Sons and the impact that they will have on the employees affected, their families and the surrounding area of North Ayrshire.

I confirm that we received notification of the redundancies yesterday and took immediate action through the partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—team initiative. We contacted the company to offer support for any individuals facing redundancy.

I also confirm that our agencies will seek to meet the company to discuss what assistance we can provide to support it and, we hope, to prevent some or all of the redundancies.

We will do our absolute best, and I hope that that provides reassurance to the member that we will do everything that we can to support the company and employees.