If you read between the lines it's an attack on Labour.
So again, entirely designed to damage their chief electoral opponents.
I've come to the conclusion that it is not a given that Hoyle was bullied. His line that he wanted the broadest possible debate (and by extension vote) makes sense.
The SNP motion excluded a huge range of voters (Labour loyalists and Tories). The Labour amendment allowed a call for ceasefire without apportioning blame.
That's right! In wanting to use one of their three opposition days per year (Labour get seventeen) to debate the precise position they have held since November last year, they demonstrated how successfully they'd crystal-balled exactly what Labour's own position would be by March 2024, for no reason other than causing trouble for Labour and being sleekit, disruptive, principle-free political game players!
Not sure how they didn't forsee how Hoyle would decide to hand their opposition day to Labour, and then subsequently, after reverse-ferreting & admitting he had made a massive mistake, promise them a Section 24 emergency debate on the issue - and then renege on
that promise!
Sturgeon has questions to answer, surely!
