WHEN you are in possession of a hugely important document ahead of its publication deadline you desperately want to tell people what’s in it.

You especially want to do that when it's a massively important document on the road to independence and you're the only daily newspaper that supports independence.

And definitely when you know that it's going to really upset the Unionist side because it really is so very good on so many of the economic issues on which much of the attacks on independence rest. “We're too wee, too poor” ... we're most certainly not, says this report.

Make sure you pick up the paper tomorrow – AND OUR SPECIAL EDITION ON SATURDAY! - for what we can assure you will be an astonishing series of revelations on the Sustainable Growth Commission report. We'll have in-depth analysis from our economic experts.

Even the tiny amount of details we were able to reveal in Thursday’s paper thanks to an official press briefing – an extra economic output of £4100 per person was the attention-grabbing headline – has upset Unionists. As one of them said to us: “And they say RT peddles propaganda. Even Pravda would be embarrassed with this pish.”

Aye, they’re rattled! But it’s not going to be as simple as just winding up Unionists, for this document demands study and contemplation. It really does show a future that an independent Scotland could have. What’s more, it tasks the whole polity of Scotland, every last one of us, to make choices – isn’t that a beautiful idea? That WE get to make the choices, and not a Parliament in another country so dominated by people not of our choosing.

Sure, the headline writers in the Unionist media – that’s the vast majority of the media, of course – will pick and choose difficult issues and overly simplify them to a few words, or pick out a soundbite amounting to SNP-Indy-Scotland Bad, such as the currency matters which have already been well trailed. All we can ask is that opponents and supporters of independence alike should read every word of that section, and every other section, before making a judgement on the worth of this report.

At 354 pages, the report is detailed but absolutely NOT prescriptive. Indeed, there are many admissions of challenges facing an independent Scotland, but the report has a positive view of how these can be faced. There is also a huge emphasis on responsibility, even to the extent of detailing how debts that many on the pro-independence side say should be set aside would be paid.

No doubt the naysayers will attempt to knock the membership of the Commission itself with the tired SNP 'placepeople' jibe. They had better be careful with that one given the breadth of talent on the Commission. And the methodology – fully explained, unlike some right-wing ‘think tanks’ we could mention – is faultless.

Having read it from cover to cover, we are happy to say than more than with the recommendations it makes, we are particularly impressed by tone of the report, the seriousness of its science, the professionalism of its authors and an approach based on empirical evidence rather than metaphysical fantasies.

There are going to be a lot of Unionists, and, it must be said, a lot of pro-independence supporters, who will be gobsmacked when they read the report over the weekend. It is just the most comprehensive look at a likely post-independence Scottish economy that could be imagined, and what makes it effective is that it absolutely acknowledges the difficulties an independent Scotland will face and, entirely understandably, doesn't give all the answers.

It also shows the vast opportunities – the call for a Sovereign Wealth Fund using all future North Sea revenues, for example ... and that’s just one of many inspiring ideas.

One problem with the 2014 referendum was that too many people made predictions and criticisms based on aspirations and wishes. That was the main criticism of the Scottish Government's White Paper, 'Scotland’s Future'. Many in the Yes movement will be relieved to learn this report is a quantum leap ahead of that document. The Sustainable Growth Commission certainly does not claim to have all the questions and solutions, not least because it says there should be further debate all round, but it does nail down plenty of facts and plenty of options and, yes, states its opinion on some matters with certainty.

For that we should be grateful, because the report is not the end of the debate, but a very good and promising beginning.