If you’re anything like me – some of you will be, some of you won’t – there’s a good chance that, after eight long years, you probably thought you’d heard it all before in the debate about independence. And then something strange happened. Nicola Sturgeon made a remark that was genuinely, properly, I-wasn’t-expecting-that surprising. “I feel British”, she said.

Before we go any further, I must admit that I didn’t see Ms Sturgeon make the remarks in person so wasn’t able to see the nuances, or the body language. But I have been genuinely trying to work out why she said it and what it meant. Some nationalists appear to be hacked off with her. Some unionists appear to be cynical about the truth of the comments. But perhaps we could boil it all down to the following five questions.

Does she really mean it?

What Ms Sturgeon said was this: “I consider myself British as well as Scottish. British is an identity that comes from being part of the British Isles.” She also drew a parallel between Scots who have a Pakistani or African identity. This is interesting because it is in effect an admission of how national identity actually works.

There are effectively two elements to it. First, there is the legal fact i.e. Nicola Sturgeon is British whether she feels it or not and so are the nationalists who say “Scottish not British”. They can say that, but it is not true. As Ms Sturgeon said, British is an identity that comes from being part of the British Isles.

However, the second element is the extent to which nationalists accept (or feel) the legal fact. Ms Sturgeon said she considered herself British and it’s interesting to think why. She is the same age as me – we were both born in 1970 within a few days of each other and we both grew up in a pre-devolution country under Margaret Thatcher, at a time when Britain had in many ways a mono-culture. Is it surprising that she – even she – considers herself British? The critical issue is the Scots who grew up later, in the 90s and afterwards. How British do they feel? Based on most of the ones I speak to, I’d say: not much.

Why is she saying it?

I have two theories here and they’re just theories. First, the First Minister thinks talking in a more honest and sensible way about British identity could win over Scots who are cautious about voting Yes because they value their British identity. If this is what she’s doing, it’s a fair strategy. Build on it and tell us what a British identity would be like in an independent Scotland (and how it would be protected) and we’re all ears.

The second theory is more personal. It’s hard to imagine Ms Sturgeon saying something like this in 2014, and it’s surprising in many ways to hear her say it a year (allegedly) before another referendum. Could it be that she’s saying something seemingly inimical to her cause because she’s just more relaxed about it and knows it doesn’t matter as much as it could have in 2014. To put it another way: there ain’t gonna be indyref2 next year so let’s just chillax and talk freely.

What effect will it have on people like me?

It’s interesting to think where Ms Sturgeon made these remarks. She was at the Edinburgh fringe (again) and she’ll have intuited that the kind of shouty nationalism she might use at a George Square rally isn’t appropriate for a bookish, bright Fringe audience. So what she said was more nuanced and honest than the fallacy and arrogance of “Scottish not British”. “It’s about self-governance,” she said, whatever your identity, and this, I think, is much more likely to appeal to people like me: people reluctant to vote Yes. Economic questions aside, the reasonable middle is much more open to this kind of language.

What effect will it have on nationalists?

As I say, there were some Scottish nationalists who appeared to be furious with the First Minister – how committed is the leader of the Yes movement, they asked, if she’s going around the place saying she’s British? Her answer, and it’s a fair one, would be that you can be both: British and want independence.

The First Minister also knows the reality of the situation here. She said at the event that there would be some who would call her a traitor because she is not pure enough in her support for independence. But she also knows that even if they did scream “traitor” at her, they would still vote Yes. To that extent: it doesn’t matter if the leader of the Yes movement says she’s British because the angry Yessers will still be Yessers.

What does it say about Nicola Sturgeon’s future?

The most curious question in a way. Ms Sturgeon said at the event that her assumption was she would still be in charge of the SNP at the next Holyrood election in 2026 but the optics around this are weird. There has been no launch of a Yes campaign. There has been no sense – absolutely none – that an actual campaign is about to happen for an actual referendum. There have been a couple of soporific cut-and-paste independence pamphlets. But is their heart really in it? Really?

Ms Sturgeon is also subject here to the ten-year rule which pretty much applies to all politicians, however good they are. It’s an exhausting and difficult job and after a couple of elections, or about ten years or so, a sort of entropy sets in: the leader gets tired, they make mistakes, and, honestly, they just get fed up. It means it’s much easier, and nicer, to do a few Fringe events rather than heave yourself up the hill for an alleged campaign for an alleged referendum.

So let me summarise then. Does she really mean it? Yes. Why is she saying it? Because there isn’t going to be a referendum next year. What effect will it have on people like me? A small one, possibly. What effect will it have on nationalists? None. What does it say about Nicola Sturgeon’s future? She’s thinking about life after leadership and it’s becoming more of a reality.

I accept I do not know for sure if my answers are right but if you doubt me, compare 2022 to 2013, compare Alex Salmond to Nicola Sturgeon, compare how you feel now with how you felt then. A leader of the SNP who can say, casually, that she feels British is in a different place to the one she was in a few years ago. Looked at optimistically, it’s a sign of a leader who’s become more aware of nuance than nationalism. But whatever the truth, we need to ask one more question: are we seeing a First Minister who’s preparing to change?

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