Andrew Wilson: Why we shouldn't listen to the euro currency nonsense

The eurozone does not want any new member of the club that is not ready, aligned, prepared and willing.

The Czech Republic joined the EU nearly 15 years ago. There is no sign of them adopting the Euro.

Nor Poland.

Sweden joined in 1995 and while obliged under the Treaty of Accession has chosen not to join the ERM II (the key precondition for joining the euro) without prior referendum approval. This has been its position for nearly a quarter of a century. It chooses not to, democratically and sustainably.

READ MORE: David Martin: Scotland would NOT have to join Euro to get back in EU

I saw one of the better-known Unionist twitter trolls – ironically trading on their “historian” credentials – respond to this claiming that this was OK because Sweden had joined the EU before the euro was “even thought of”.

In fact, the euro was conceived with the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. It is right there on the first page and sixth clause: “RESOLVED to achieve the strengthening and the convergence and to establish an economic and monetary union including, in provisions of this Treaty, a single and stable currency”.

I thought historians read stuff? I do hope that one isn’t teaching anyone.

There is a positive case to be made for the Union. Or at least there was one. It does rather appear to be crumbling before our eyes as Britain’s global status is reduced to laughing stock through its own governmental self-harm.

But what there does not appear to be is anyone actually making it. The core argument of the energetic and well-funded campaign groups is “can’t”. They throw out volumes of increasingly hysterical content about why Scotland is uniquely badly placed to do anything, forgetting that this is a diagnosis of the status quo rather than the alternative future. I struggle to find any prospectus of what the Union will offer the coming generations anywhere.

The European Union would want Scotland as a full member, this much seems certain. The EU would also want Scotland to be undertaking an orderly and well managed independence transition.

WATCH: Blackford destroys Better Together nonsense of Sky News presenters

They would wish for this process to ensure that its economy and public finances are on track to be performing sustainably. It would be supportive of Scotland in creating the institutions it needs, including a new central bank. History proves this. There is no evidence anywhere that the EU wishes any country to join the euro against its own economic interests, that of the eurozone or indeed against the wishes of its people. There is clear evidence from recent history that the reverse is true.

What is in the interests of all partners, debt providers and ourselves is that Scotland learns the lessons of modern history from the best performing small countries in the world.

This means world-class governance, sustainable public finances and a strategy for growth, success and equality of opportunity. And it means a clear prospectus of how to get to there from the position we find ourselves in now.

“Can’t” is the weakest of pro-Union arguments because it is not pro-Union it is only anti-independence – the same independence that is enjoyed, pooled, shared and co-operated with by 28 EU members and 193 members of the United Nations.

Scotland has a lot to give our future partners. Our future partners have a lot to offer us. In the face of “can’t” I prefer “can”.

Natural resource report proves UK strategy isn’t working for us

THE publication by the Scottish Government and the Office for National Statistics of the first account of Scotland’s Natural Capital was experimental but also mind-blowing.

In short it found that the value of our natural capital in 2015 was £273 billion or 34% of that of the whole United Kingdom. If you measure it, you can manage it better.

This poses a question for policy-makers: how can an economy with a third of the natural assets be producing only 1/12th of the output of the UK economy? There are many answers to that question, of course. But one part must be that the UK economic strategy (if one can discern one) is not utilising Scotland’s assets or indeed those of the regions of the UK beyond London and the South East.

So, this is more evidence that Scotland’s potential is huge, and not being fully realised.

A positive balance sheet should not be seen as a scorecard, but as a measure of potential.

This is particularly the case for the eco balance sheet. How can these assets be utilised to deliver prosperity and a high quality of life for people in Scotland sustainably?

Looking at such balance sheets helps you think longer term and for the next generation. For some clever critics the only thing that matters for national strategy is cashflows in the public sector. This matters hugely. But if it is all you think about you forget both the future and your potential as so many seem to.

The latest Whole of Government accounts is the balance sheet for the UK public sector. It deserves far closer scrutiny and far greater profile. We used it for part of our analysis in the report for the Sustainable Growth Commission.

The latest shows that the liabilities for the UK public sector are increasing more than the assets. It shows liabilities of £4.3 trillion, assets of £1.9trn and therefore a net liability of £2.4trn.

Over 60% of the assets are property plant and equipment. The liabilities are dominated by balloon-ing UK debt (30%) and unfunded public sector pension schemes (42%). Also in there, however, are £322bn of provisions including £185bn for decommissioning nuclear power stations.

Did anyone mention this when the energy policy decision was taken a generation or two ago, to go nuclear rather than build on the expertise that Scotland had in renewable energy as Denmark did, to their current economic advantage? I may have missed a meeting. If the starting point had been Scotland’s Natural Capital, a different decision might have been taken.

What is important is that these future liabilities (debt repayments and pensions in particular) can be met from future tax revenues (which are not included on the assets side).

It may have escaped the notice of many, but any independence negotiation and transition would require a fair and equitable division of assets and liabilities, obviously. Given the numbers above it is clear that the power in that negotiation would be, to say the least, balanced.

An honest reflection on the implications of this for us all and for future generations is worthy of thought, debate and a strategy.

Our political debate hollers in the froth of the waves while there is an ocean of work elsewhere needing done.