The outrage expressed by SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn at recent decisions by the Speaker appeared to some commentators to obscure what should have been the biggest talking point: the continuing bombardment of Gaza by the Israelis.

That was certainly the view of our columnist Carlos Alba, who condemned what he called Mr Flynn’s “towering arrogance" in a hard-hitting piece yesterday.

Read his column here 👈

Today, one of our readers angrily comes to Stephen Flynn’s defence.

Hugh Kerr of Edinburgh writes:

Ruth Marr of Stirling writes: "It is shameful of Carlos Alba to suggest that Stephen Flynn was more angry at the 'breach of protocol' in the Commons last week than he is about the horrors which continue to unfold in Gaza.

"Mr Alba admits that Sir Keir Starmer 'sought to amend' the SNP's Opposition Day motion to 'head off an embarrassing rebellion' by Sir Keir's Labour MPs. The Speaker, who is supposed to be impartial, knew exactly what he was doing; Sir Lindsay Hoyle is a former Labour MP, his actions suggest that he still is. And how can anyone have confidence in a man who has rejected an application by the SNP for an emergency debate on Gaza, when it was Sir Lindsay himself who proposed such a debate? Are Mr Flynn and his colleagues supposed to laugh off the whole frustrating episode?

"Many MPs report that on the subject of Gaza their mailbags are heavier than they have ever been. SNP Members of Parliament, like all MPs, are there to represent their constituents, and the SNP holds the majority of Scottish seats at Westminster. The actions of the Speaker, in following the wishes of the Leader of the Labour Party, is a slap in the face not only to the SNP, but to Scottish voters. It tells us all we need to know about Westminster's attitude to Scotland. But then, we knew that anyway."

Get the Letter of the Day straight to your inbox.

📨 Read more in our Letters page
Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.