ACCORDING to Edinburgh social media analysts SoDash, 84 per cent of tweets sent during the referendum campaign were from independence supporters. No wonder we No supporters on social media felt overwhelmed by the opposition. We were! Yes voters, though less numerous, were very much more vocal online.

I know for many Yes supporters their campaign was so empowering and positive it’s difficult to either empathise with those who disagreed, or understand why we experienced it as far less pleasant. But as much as the referendum campaign inspired political engagement, it also sowed deep divisions and opened wounds that continue to fester.

Many of the No supporters I talked to were too scared to have posters in their windows, to engage online with Yes supporters, who often hunted in packs, or even to audibly answer canvassers’ questions in case their neighbours might hear. Fear is not a sign of healthy debate. Canvassers were followed and photographed, politicians were intimidated and shouted down and journalists were threatened and harassed. These things happened online and on the streets.

The traditional response to these observations is to poo-poo them and insist that only a minority indulged. I don’t think that’s good enough. It creates a dishonest history and marginalises those for whom this was lived experience. It happened. It is how I and many others experienced the referendum.

Last September was a polarising moment for our nation. It inspired a generation of activists and transformed online debating culture, but it left our politics broken, bound up in abstract constitutional debate.

We have to do better. And that starts with accepting the democratic will of the people and agreeing not to put us all through this again.

Longevity of the term ‘cybernat’ is blamed on continuing abuse