Nicola Sturgeon will have read the Growth Commission report with one central question in her mind.

Is it a package that will help her persuade voters of the economic case for independence?

The report certainly deals with some of the Yes side’s apparent difficulties in the 2014 referendum.

Read more: Jim Sillars: Growth Commission has depth, detail and intellectual rigour

Insisting that an independent Scotland would share the pound with the rest of the UK was an awkward sell given that the rest of the UK was insistent that it would not be willing to share.

But at the same time, it was also clear from the referendum polls that most voters wanted to keep the pound.

The Commission’s answer to this conundrum is to say that, for the first ten years of independence at least, Scotland would use the pound unilaterally - and simply accept that the country’s monetary policy was still being decided in Threadneedle Street.

Read more: David Bell: Growth Commission is a reasoned economic case but it won’t please everyone

The Yes side also struggled with the argument that an independent Scotland would have been unable to bail out Scotland’s two big banks during the 2008 financial crisis.

This is met by suggesting it would be little loss if the remaining largely nominal bank headquarters that now exist in Scotland in the wake of the financial crash were to move to London.

That would mean an independent Scotland would only have its local banks to worry about.

But Ms Sturgeon will have been looking for more than protection from enemy fire.

She will also have been looking for the positive economic case for independence.

By comparing Scotland with a dozen other, better off small countries, the Commission suggests a key argument could be that small is not just beautiful but bountiful too.

Read more: Kenny MacAskill: Growth Commission is a substantial contribution but the court of public opinion will decide

However, with one exception, there are few immediately arresting examples in the report of the steps that small countries have taken to make themselves prosperous.

Proposals for a ‘National Economic Strategy’ or a ‘Productivity Commission’ hardly seem likely set the heather alight.

The one exception is a ‘Come to Scotland’ campaign to welcome more migrants to Scotland.

But while Scotland may be less concerned about immigration than many voters in England, this could still prove quite a difficult prospect to sell.

Meanwhile, there is an acceptance that in its early years a small independent Scotland would have to establish its financial credibility by being prudent with its public finances.

That may be a realistic message, but that does not necessarily mean it will be a popular one.

John Curtice is Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University