SCOTLAND risks being scarred for years by the "vitriolic" nature of the independence debate, shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander will warn today.
In a stark assessment, the Paisley and Renfrewshire South MP said the debate had become "arid" and clashes over the country's future had become "infected" by personal insults.
Mr Alexander said that there was a danger the growing animosity between the two sides would not end after next year's referendum, leaving a damaging legacy for politics and civic life. His comments come in a speech to be delivered in his constituency tonight.
Mr Alexander will say: "Stepping back over the summer from the day to day exchanges confirmed to me just how arid much of the contemporary constitutional debate has become.
"In the last year alone we've seen a debate characterised all too often by shallowness, grievance and personal vitriol.
"There is a real risk that the vitriol, which at times has infected the debate, will not simply fade post 18th September 2014, and when people look beneath the surface of whatever numbers define the result, it will not be a pleasant view.
"Whatever the outcome of the vote, that cannot and would not be good for Scotland."
He said the referendum battle had overstepped a healthy "rigorous and passionate debate".
His warning echoes remarks by broadcaster Andrew Marr who complained about the "very, very aggressive" tone of the debate on both sides.
The BBC journalist told an Edinburgh International Book Festival audience in the summer: "It is wrong and dangerous because whatever happens next year you are all going to have to live together afterwards."
Mr Alexander will use his speech tonight to call on all parties, including the SNP, to sign up to a National Convention on Scotland's future in the event of a No vote.
He first raised the proposal in March when it met a positive reaction from Labour, Lib Dems and Tory MSPs.
He will say: "It would be both an expression of our patriotism and pride in Scotland, and a mechanism by which to translate our sense of possibility for post-2014 Scotland into practical policies.
"Indeed it would be a very tangible answer to the question 'What comes next if Scotland rejects separation in 2014?"
He will add: "All sides of this debate have an interest in the referendum outcome being respected.
"So if, in a year's time, Scotland does reject separation, then why shouldn't Nationalists too come to see a National Convention as a constructive means to discuss, deliberate and decide together on what our better future within the UK looks like?"
Mr Alexander said the National Convention should consider ways to develop devolution and increase Holyrood's powers.
But he insisted it should also look at ways of tackling long-term political challenges such as Scotland's ageing population. He will say: "All of us - myself included - seeking to improve the devolution settlement need the humility to acknowledge that the debate about 'powers for the parliament', just like the debate about separation, has too often in the past left the public cold."
Mr Marr, who also warned of a "toxic" anti-English element to the independence debate, was strongly criticised by the SNP.
At the time the party said it was "disappointed with the picture of Scotland he painted".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article