The debate over Scottish independence needs to be more respectful as it has become "stuck in a rut", a top political academic has said.
Professor James Mitchell - who has written a number of books examining devolution and the SNP - said the “binary choice between union and independence” should be replaced by a wider look at the kind of society that Scots wanted.
Mitchell said there were "a multitude of options for governing Scotland" and these needed to be to be "accommodated respectfully" in the debate on the country's future.
His comments were published today just hours after Nicola Sturgeon slammed "keyboard warriors hurling abuse".
The First Minister posted a series of Tweets on Saturday night condemning online abuse of anyone who had announced they intended to stand as a candidate at next year's Holyrood elections, which are expected to be dominated by the independence question.
"A shout out to everyone - in all parties - standing for election to the Scottish Parliament for the first time," the SNP leader said.
"You will face abuse on here - especially if you have the temerity to be a woman and/or from one of our BAME communities.
"Bullies are cowards and that’s just as true on social media as it is in real life.
"By putting yourself forward, you are already showing more guts than any keyboard warrior hurling abuse."
Writing in the Herald on Sunday, Professor Mitchell said: "The debate on Scotland’s constitutional-political future is stuck in a rut.
"Opinion is divided evenly between supporters and opponents of independence, with neither side willing to concede or compromise.
"In the 2014 referendum, the simple question was interpreted as a debate on Scotland’s social and economic future and constitutional status.
"There was often agreement, though rarely admitted, on the kind of society and economy desired among many who campaigned on different sides.
Debate has now contracted since this expansive interpretation of the “Scottish Question” to a much narrower set of questions.
A new Jimmy Reid Foundation pamphlet makes the case for a fuller and broader debate replacing the binary choice between union and independence, and one enriched by discussion of the kind of society and economy desired.
"This recognises a multitude of options for governing Scotland. These need to be accommodated respectfully in the debate on Scotland’s future.
"In place of constitutional preference as the starting point in deliberation or an end in itself, the primacy focus should be the kind of society and economy desired.
"Further, we should accept that Scotland’s constitutional status cannot be cast in stone but will evolve regardless of the outcome of any referendum."
