People sometimes say to me “why on earth do you keep banging on about ‘nationalists’ and ‘unionists’ when the terms are so out-dated and fail to reflect the complex and changing landscape of modern Scottish politics?” or words to that effect, and I say to them: well, yes, fair enough sir or madam, but what do you suggest as alternatives? If we are not unionists and nationalists, then what are we? What on earth should we be calling ourselves?

The answer, I’m afraid, is complicated, and it’s complicated because the people who say “why do you keep banging on about nationalists and unionists” have a point: the terms aren’t all that helpful, but they’re not entirely useless either. The word “nationalist” correctly describes some of the independence movement and the word “unionist” does the same for people who want to stay in the UK. The terms are accurate to an extent – just not accurate enough.

The precise problem with the words was identified by a reader who emailed me last week. “Nationalism has negative connotations,” he said, “for example xenophobia, and can be, and is often, used as a term of abuse. To want self-government does not necessarily make you a nationalist in this or any other sense … equally, it you want to retain the status quo then that is fine – but ‘unionism’ can now easily be tarred with Union Jack waving sectarian thuggery.”

I agree with the gist of what he says there. I also agree with his view that the continuing use of the terms unionist and nationalist could contribute to increasing hysteria and prevent people on all sides coming to terms with whatever political changes are in our future. Until 2014, it would never have crossed my mind to call myself a unionist, but one by one we were divided into unionist and nationalist, yes and no, and the problem, as you know, is that once you’ve stuck labels on to things, they’re pretty hard to peel off.

To make matters worse, the word “nationalist” also applies to some on the No side and has been used that way by some supporters of independence, as in “British nationalist” or “Brit Nat”. The problem with that approach, though, is the same as the problem with “Scottish nationalist”: there are some on the No side who love the Union Jack as much as some on the Yes side love the saltire, and Northern Irish unionism, football, and religion also play their part, but it’s only a part. To label someone who wants to remain in the UK a “Brit Nat” is in most cases a grotesque distortion.

The fact that “Brit Nat” (or worse “Yoon”) has gained some traction anyway is itself a reflection of the central problem: British nationalism is a slur because “national”, “nationalism” or “nat” have negative connotations. Nicola Sturgeon herself acknowledged this in 2017 when she said that, if she could turn back the clock and choose her party’s name again, she wouldn’t choose the name it has now: she knows the N of “national” is reductive and negative, but there it is anyway, nestling between the S and the P.

The question is: are there any realistic alternatives and, if so, could they catch on? The reader I spoke to last week suggested the phrases “those who want self-government” and “those who want to retain the union”, or “self-government supporters” and “union supporters”. He said using such phrases instead of nationalist and unionist would moderate the debate and stop us becoming further polarised.

But would they really? As a colleague pointed out to me, the first problem with “those who want self-government” and “those who want to retain the union” is that they are really hard to fit into a headline. Secondly, there’s a dodgy implication in the words “those who want self-government” that those on the No side do not want self-government; in fact, they want self-government in a different form. And thirdly, “retain the union” suggests unionists want to keep things as they are, whereas, in fact, unionism covers everything from unitarists to federalists who want further reform and change.

You can see the problem, can’t you? We’ve got to the point now where all the words that have been used in the debate – union, independence, nationalism, even Yes and No – have been wielded as an insult at some point which means that trying a new, less controversial combination runs into trouble pretty quickly. The words and phrases we favour also reflect, possibly unconsciously, a desire to make our side look good and the other side less good; our words are loaded with our preferences and prejudices.

Having said that, I would still like to propose a couple of alternatives. For example, instead of “nationalist”, how about “secessionist”? I did wonder about “separatist” for a while, but I guess the argument there is that the SNP wants self-government whereas separatist suggests something more drastic. Secessionist is also not entirely free of baggage – some will think of the American Civil War – but as an option, it’s not at all bad is it?

As for “unionist”, I agree with the former Scottish secretary Michael Moore who said the word serves no purpose other than for those who wish to see no further devolution (or less) and those who favour independence and use it in the pejorative. So how about “devolutionist” instead? That was the preferred option of the former Welsh first minister Rhodri Morgan, who said he was neither nationalist nor unionist but a passionate devolutionist who believed the constitution was healthier for having devolution since 1999.

I realise both terms – secessionist and devolutionist – are not perfect; devolutionist, in particular, doesn’t reflect the fact there are some on the No side, as Michael Moore pointed out, who don’t like devolution at all. I’m also unsure how Yes supporters feel about the word secessionist. They’ll probably tell me.

And anyway, maybe your response to all of this is: why not stick to “Yes supporter” and “No supporter”? But even “yes” and “no” are problematic – indeed, the SNP’s use of “yes” probably gave it an unfair advantage in 2014 and still does. It’s also a demonstration of how tricky and touchy this area of politics has become. Ordinary words have become enemies, and weapons, and yet here we are, still using them because we don’t have much choice. We need something else. We need alternatives. Suggestions, please.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.