DISAGREEMENT seems generally frowned upon today. Which is a shame. Without disagreement, humanity would, one imagines, still be stuck in the Stone Age contemplating the miracle of fire.

Disagreement is the path to progress. Disagreement doesn’t have to mean conflict, though, in truth, as long as conflict is verbal and in the realm of the intellect – far removed from fists and weapons – then that’s no bad thing either.

You suggest a position. I suggest an alternative. Eventually we compromise. Both of us get some of what we want; neither dominates the other. That’s the best map to follow along the sometimes discomfiting path of democracy. Yet it’s the only path, unless you veer off into the dark, frightening woods.

However, since social media sunk its venomous fangs into us, disagreement has been subject to genetic mutation. It’s either a blood sport of threats, abuse, and silencing. Or it’s feared and rejected, with some – understandably – refusing to engage in such brutal show-downs, and instead favouring the safety of group-think.

If you’re searching for primary evidence attesting to the debasement of society in the 21st century, then the collapse of the notion of disagreement as a force for good stares you in the face.

Let’s focus on the evidence in our own backyard. There should be a healthy, robust debate in Scotland right now hammering out exactly what devolution means. Independence is a distant dream at best, so let’s park that position temporarily and explore what we have constitutionally, and whether that’s fit for purpose.

Devolution is now well into adulthood. The Scottish Parliament will be 25-years-old next year. It unquestionably requires a 21st century upgrade. Some will prefer the status quo, some will want fewer powers, and some more powers.

The debate should have taken the shape of an on-going national conversation, with disagreement reasoned and fact-based. Passions could run high, tempers fray, and that would be fine. That’s messy old democracy.

Read more: NEIL MACKAY'S BIG READ‘Our Indyref2 policy is a total mess': Wishart candidly reveals all on SNP troubles

But debate hasn’t taken place. Instead, devolution has stagnated. We’re locked in a trench-warfare slog between the fundamentalisms of independence and "muscular unionism", personified by the Scottish and UK governments. That’s a zero sum game. In other words, disagreement becomes pointless as there’s no real debate and nobody will give ground.

Thus, we come to our current destination: a legal and administrative cold war between Edinburgh and London.

We’ve had legislative battles over trans rights land in court, along with the issue of whether the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a referendum. We’ve also had the deposit return scheme end in the ditch due to stand-offs between London and Edinburgh. All three cases centred on the limits of devolution.

An on-going rolling discussion about what devolution "means", where the "parameters" of devolution stand, might have prevented these issues – particularly around trans rights and environmentalism – descending into ugly, unnecessary culture wars.

If both governments took seriously their obligations to hone and perfect the imperfect creation that’s devolution we wouldn’t have ended with needless litigation.

Then we’ve the latest evidence of failed debate on both sides: the row over First Minister Humza Yousaf meeting Turkey’s authoritarian strongman Recep Erdogan at Cop28. UK foreign secretary David Cameron sees this as a step too far by a devolved administration and is threatening to withdraw co-operation for Scottish ministers regarding meetings with overseas governments.

Now there’s plenty to argue about here: whether Mr Yousaf acted contrary to British interests; the irony of an unelected Lord giving lectures about democracy; how much latitude Scotland should have when it comes to foreign relations.

But the substantive issue is this: Mr Yousaf’s Erdogan meeting is a perfect example of the untested limits of devolution, and so it should be a matter for reasoned discussion, not another opportunity for politicians to score populist points by painting opponents as villains.

The reverse is also true. There’s every possibility Scottish courts could be used as a vehicle to halt the Conservative government’s Rwanda Bill. Again, pick whichever side you wish, but once more it proves the fluid borders of devolution need explored. Where does the power of one end, and the other begin?

A healthy debate on devolution can only enhance our politics. Rather than warring, Edinburgh and London could act as checks and balances on each other; the inner and outer wheels of democracy constraining and steadying one another.

This isn’t a reason for Yes voters to stop supporting independence. It’s simply a means to improve politics, while Yes voters simultaneously continue campaigning for Scottish independence. It’s not hard to hold two competing thoughts simultaneously.

Now, the prospect of a Labour government offers a chance to reset devolution. Labour proposes effectively renewing the UK’s social contract; English devolution; replacing the House of Lords with an Assembly of the Nations and Regions, which would give Scotland a greater voice; and greater cooperation between the four UK governments.

Labour’s proposals don’t go far enough, in my view. There should be an intelligent discussion about more powers for Scotland. The first step Keir Starmer should take on assuming office is establishing a Constitutional Commission in which Holyrood’s powers are debated. Those who wish to limit Scotland’s powers should have as much right to speak, as those like me who believe Scotland needs more powers, including full fiscal autonomy.

Every political party should engage honestly, not as a spoiler for either hardline nationalism or unionism. Nobody will get everything they want from this. Good.

Such a debate wouldn’t lead to independence. So folk like me will be disappointed. Fine. It won’t lead to the defeat of the Yes movement. So truculent unionism will be disappointed too. Fine.

Read more: Neil Mackay: Loretto pupil: I was in flight mode for years. Now I'm in fight mode

What it should lead to is a better settlement when it comes to how this nation operates. We could define the contours of devolution and work within them to keep all governments on track, so they serve the people, not their own petty obsessions. At best, it would allow passions to cool, and bring an end to governments fighting each other in court like some bitter, divorcing couple.

Alternatively, we could just keep on the path we’re on. But such a step would be to devolve our collective common-sense. On that, I don’t think anyone could disagree.