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.
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.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel