Labour have backed proposals that would bar Scots MPs from some Westminster committees - in a bid to head off David Cameron's "English votes for English laws" push.
Under Labour's proposal a committee of English MPs would scrutinise and amend but not veto 'English only' legislation.
All MPs, incuding Scots, would still vote on the legislation when it returned to the Commons.
Labour said that the move would "strengthen England's voice" at Westminster, without creating two classes of MPs.
An article by shadow cabinet ministers Hilary Benn and Sadiq Khan also attacked the Conservative proposals which could "inadvertently undermine the union of nations that is the United Kingdom".
They also accused the Prime Minister of "giving up" hopes of winning a majority across the UK at next year's general election.
The move by Labour comes just days before the Coalition is expected to set out its proposals for "English votes for English laws" (EVEL).
The document is expected to list a number of available options after the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats failed to agree a way forward.
With no agreement between the main parties at Westminster nothing will be decided before next May.
But Labour is keen to limit its political exposure on the issue, which the Tories see as a vote winner in the south of England.
Mr Cameron was accused of betrayal after he announced plans to limits Scottish MPs voting rights less than an hour after the independence result was announced in September.
Labour - who are likely to rely on Scots MPs to form a government - have accused Mr Cameron of attempted "gerrymandering".
They claim the Tory leader wants to create a separate 'English Parliament' at Westminster, which his party could potentially control even if Labour won the keys to Downing Street in 2015.
Labour sought assurances last month that devolving control of most of income tax to Holyrood would not see Scots MPs barred from voting on the Budget.
Many in the party fear such a ban could prevent a future Labour government - if it did not command a majority of English MPs - getting its spending plans through the Commons.
Others have warned EVEL could also prevent a Scot ever again becoming Chancellor or Prime Minister, because the convention of collective responsibility demands ministers vote for their own policies.
The shadow ministers said the new proposals "must be" looked at as part of a constitutional convention, which Labour has said it will launch if it wins the general election.
It is understood that the move has the backing of Ed Miliband.
Under the proposals, Scottish MPs would be barred from a committee which scrutinises and amends '"English only' legislation.
However, the Bill would still have to go back to the Commons, where all MPs, including Scots, would get a vote.
The proposals were one of the options suggested by the Coalition-ordered McKay report, which has been mainly ignored since it was published in 2013.
The report said that under the system the Commons could still overrule what had been decided among English MPs in committee.
However, its authors added that they would expect that outcome to be used "rarely".
The shadow ministers also accuse Mr Cameron of drawing up proposals in a "secret Whitehall committee", and approach that "just won't wash" with the British public, they warned.
They add: "The truth is that the Tories seem now to have given up any hope of winning a majority of UK MPs at the next election."
The SNP have long abstained from votes on "English only" laws.
But earlier this week Alex Salmond suggested that the party could do a U-turn on the issue.
In a interview with the Spectator magazine he said his first choice would be not to vote on those issue if elected to Westminster next May.
But, he added in a comment widely seen as a nod to labour, he added that if there was a hung parliament: "Of course in that position we would, obviously, be prepared to listen to other counsel."
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