Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I’m not convinced a straightforward motion in line with their own stance calling for a ceasefire which the Government and opposition could then vote for or against is “designed” to do anything other than what it said on the tin.
|
Of course, it is.
If you're the third largest party and you genuinely want a motion to pass then you need to build cross-party consensus. The SNP knew, and were told, that a motion that didn't also mention that Israel has a right to defend itself and didn't condemn Hamas violence wasn't going to pass.
It was a motion designed to be defeated so they could grandstand after the fact.
They even left the chamber for the actual vote!
Quote:
|
I’m equally unconvinced that your dismissal of objecting to not following established process as “pearl clutching” is motivated by anything other than your own political bias.
|
I agree with you that the Labour motion shouldn't have been selected and Labour were playing politics. I just disagree the SNP had pure intentions.
You seem to have a level of cynicism you suspend the moment the line being delivered to you is presented as an alternative take to the establishment. Labour/Tories bad, SNP Good. The West bad, Kremlin good.