THE Growth Commission report that SNP members and others will be discussing over the summer makes 50 recommendations. It looks at what Scotland can do to grow its economy now, what we can do with more powers, and what we can do with the full powers of independence.

It looks at all the big issues that Scotland’s economy needs to address – population, participation and productivity. It rejects austerity, showing how real-terms increases in public spending can be achieved based on trend growth rate – compare and contrast the Growth Commission’s 5% real-terms increase over 10 years with the 9% reductions under Tory austerity this decade.

It shows how, over time, we can match the growth rates, and then the standards of living, of other small independent countries. And it does so in a mature way that is credible and compelling, recognising that there are no magic bullets when it comes to building an economy.

But it is recommendation number 44 that will perhaps, at least initially, stimulate the most debate. The choice of currency for an independent Scotland is seen by some as the Achilles heel of Scotland’s aspirations for self-determination, and by others as a litmus test of commitment to the cause.

Let’s get something straight at the start. Currency isn’t a nationalistic virility symbol, and having your own currency isn’t a prerequisite for “real” independence. Arguing that Germany and France aren’t sovereign because they don’t use marks or francs anymore isn’t credible. And five of the 12 countries the Growth Commission learns from are in the same boat – Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Ireland and Finland don’t have their own currency. Two others have their own currency but keep its value tied to another – Denmark to the euro, and Hong Kong to the US dollar.

So I was surprised to see the bogeyman of Greece being dragged out as an argument to ditch sterling. Greece’s problem was primarily a debt problem. It borrowed too much. There are many reasons why it did so, and much blame can be attached to German and French banks and arms companies.

But sharing a currency was not the cause of Greece’s problems, and ditching the euro would not have fixed the problem. Even at the height of the crisis, Greece didn’t return to the drachma. People understood what that would have done to prices and pensions, rocketing costs of imports and hikes in interest rates. When you get into that level of debt your creditors call the shots, regardless of your currency choice.

Some see having your own currency as a magic bullet. When you control the printing presses, the argument goes, you never need worry about spending too much, just crank the handle faster. But the reality is that printing cash isn’t cost-free. Something has to give, and that something is exchange rates and the price of debt. Because, despite what some say, central banks don’t control either of those, it’s the markets.

Those of us old enough to remember Black Wednesday have seen what the markets do to a currency that tries to maintain its value at an unrealistic level. Within hours the pound plunged out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, interest rates rocketed to 15% and the Treasury lost billions in a futile attempt to stop the slide.

None of this means expansionist fiscal policies aren’t possible. Indeed the whole purpose of the Growth Commission is to show exactly how comparable small countries do this, by taking sensible steps to deliver growth, and driving inclusion agendas that share that wealth by bringing more citizens into meaningful participation in the economy.

The Growth Commission lays out six tests that should be considered before Scotland decides to make any change to its choice of currency. Three of these concern hard measures – on debt and deficit, on the price of debt and on foreign currency reserves. Denmark has foreign exchange reserves of £60bn in place to defend its currency, and has the European Central Bank standing behind that if needed.

Two concern alignment of trade and investment cycles – as over time Scotland dilutes its dependence on the UK economy, by growing the value of our exports as Ireland has done in recent decades.

The final test is whether such a move is supported by the people of Scotland. And this gets to the nub of the matter. We support independence not because we have a view on a specific policy choice, but because we have a view on who should make those decisions. The decision on whether Scotland should change its currency is a decision that the people of Scotland should make. And, like other policy choices we will make after independence, currency isn’t on the ballot paper.

Everyone agrees that on the first day of independence Scotland will be using sterling. The most optimistic timetables for the launching of a new currency is three years – the time it took the Baltic states to do so after they left the Soviet Union (and it should be noted that in the 20 years since then, all three Baltic states have chosen to abandon their own currencies).

The Growth Commission states that putting in the groundwork to build the economic foundations to enable Scotland to credibly launch its own currency could take up to 10 years. So the debate isn’t about fundamentals, it’s about whether we would be ready to launch a Scottish currency in the second half of the first term of an independent Scottish Parliament, or whether that would be better taking place towards the end of the second term.

By all means disagree with the tests in the Growth Commission, but if you are going to do so make proposals as to how they should be amended, don’t throw them out on a point of misguided principle.

When it gets right down to it, what is important to the success of the Scottish economy are the fundamentals. Our world-class industries, Brand Scotland, top universities, food and drink, new technologies, renewables, natural resources. All of those in abundance far above the levels enjoyed by the neighbours the Growth Commission aspires for us to reach.

Look at our Scandinavian neighbours – with a range of different currency solutions, each manages to far exceed Scotland’s performance.

I am not saying that Scotland shouldn’t move towards its own currency. That may well be where we end up. But everyone agrees that we will be using sterling on day one, and the people of Scotland should set the timescale to suit what is best for Scotland.

It isn’t an issue that we should allow to derail the independence project, and it certainly doesn’t stop us driving all the improvements the Growth Commission identities that we need to make on population – through control of our immigration policies, through participation, through control of our welfare policies, and in productivity.

It doesn’t stop us expanding our export base and building relationships with nations around the world in our own right. Those are the prizes of independence. The route to a wealthier and fairer Scotland. Whether we count that wealth in sterling or some other currency isn’t the issue.

Ivan McKee is MSP for Glasgow Provan and a director of Common Weal, writing in a personal capacity