It’s not as if the Financial Times doesn’t have history with dropping great big payloads of high explosive into the middle of the independence debate late on a Sunday night. But a piece coming up in Monday’s edition (and online tonight) is going to choke a few breakfasts in London tomorrow morning.

It’s not the information in itself that’s new. Most of it is stuff the likes of this site have been screaming for the last two years. But the starkness of the language, and more pertinently the source of it, is going to rock the boat some and no mistake.

“An independent Scotland could also expect to start with healthier state finances than the rest of the UK”, for example, is not what we tend to hear from the UK media. (And doesn’t even factor in the effect of Scotland being likely to negotiate a lower debt share than its per-capita percentage.)

Similarly, “Although Scotland enjoys public spending well above the UK average – a source of resentment among some in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – the cost to the Treasury is more than outweighed by oil and gas revenues from Scottish waters” isn’t news to us, but can you EVER remember seeing it in a Scottish or UK newspaper, other than as a quote from a Yes Scotland or SNP spokesman?

The article is illustrated with some commendably clear graphics, but the one above in particular is simply dynamite. With the current UK setting the benchmark at 100, it clearly indicates, from Westminster’s own data, that right now an independent Scotland would be 11% better off overnight compared to staying in the UK.

Based on the current total Scottish budget (Scottish Government and UK government) of around £64bn, that’s somewhere in the vicinity of £7 billion a year. We don’t think even the SNP has ever put such a dramatic figure on how much wealthier Scots would be as an independent nation. It’s £1,321 a year for every man, woman and child in the country, or £5,812 a year for the classic 2.4-children nuclear family. Which puts that whole “£500” thing into some perspective.

The table above also paints a picture of strength. Unionists constantly assert that while Scotland is doing relatively well now, oil revenues are projected to fall over the next 40 years. That’s a debateable assertion – scarce commodities tend to increase in price, and independence would open up possibilities for whole new fields of exploration off Scotland’s west coast, currently off-limits due to Trident. The figure also doesn’t include the £200bn of extra cash that’s set to be generated from existing fields. And it also ignores the possibilities of tapping Scotland’s rich bounty of renewable energy.

But even if we take the halfway point between 2012 levels and no North Sea revenue at all, Scotland’s GDP per head comes out at £39,787 – over £600 more than the UK (and that’s with the UK currently getting the oil money). Scotland wouldn’t just be better off independent tomorrrow or next year or the year after, but for decades.

(And ALL of these figures, remember, are based on a Scotland with its current spending plans – it doesn’t factor in extra bonuses like the saving of £800m a year we’d be likely to make on the defence budget, to name just the obvious one.)

Make no mistake, readers – it’s one thing for dreadful cybernats like us to shout these numbers until we’re Saltire-blue in the face, but coming from the Financial Times it’s a whole different story. The article does of course contain a sprinkling of caveats and disclaimers, but as a basic statement of the reality it’s concise, unambiguous and earth-shattering. Hold onto your hats, folks, this might cause a bit of a fuss.