Welcome to our Branch Office Updates newsletter, where we delve deep into the latest Scottish Labour news, gaffes and analysis. You can subscribe here to receive it every week straight in your inbox!
LET’S not forget one crucial result of the chaos at Westminster yesterday.
The Labour amendment approved by MPs may have called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, but it failed to acknowledge the “collective punishment” of the Palestinian people by Israel.
Amid mad scenes, the original SNP motion – which included the term – wasn’t even voted on.
This watering down came as a direct result of Speaker Lindsay Hoyle deciding to ignore official advice and breaking “long-established convention” to allow the Labour amendment. It came as a direct result of Keir Starmer and his frontbench reportedly convincing Hoyle to do it just minutes before the debate, and just as the party was likely looking at a sizeable rebellion.
READ MORE: ‘Chaos in Westminster is British politics at its lowest,’ says Palestinian ambassador
Scottish Labour at their conference unanimously backed a motion saying there was "no justification for the collective punishment of 2.2 million citizens in Gaza".
So, you would have thought Scottish Labour MPs would have protested that they weren’t even allowed to vote on whether this was the case?
No. Scottish Labour MP Ian Murray said the reaction to the unprecedented move was just proof the “SNP wanted to simply embarrass Labour”.
Did Labour leader Anas Sarwar speak out given he previously said the SNP motion was “pretty reasonable”? No, instead he issued a statement claiming that “disgraceful behaviour from both the SNP and Conservatives” was to blame for the “farce” at Westminster.
His statement was slammed by SNP MSPs and others, including University of Strathclyde professor Tanja Bueltmann who wrote: “I really cannot overstate how shameful I think this statement is.
“The *only* reason there even was a motion was the SNP using its opposition day for it. And the *only* reason we ended up with chaos is that Labour didn’t want to back that motion even though it’s the stronger one.”
You may think I’m being a pedant, focusing for a moment on the term “collective punishment”. But these linguistic acknowledgements are important and so incredibly overdue.
Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the UK (above), said he “didn’t see why Labour would pick on the SNP in terms of collective punishment”.
“I mean seriously,” he added.
"Cutting off water and electricity from children. Only yesterday, Hanin Jumaa – an 8-year-old girl – died because of starvation. And the House of Commons is still discussing* whether Israel is applying policies of collective punishment."
*Was going to discuss and vote
I also spoke with Oxfam's policy lead in Gaza, Bushra Khalidi, who told me it was "ludicrous" that people are still not acknowledging the "collective punishment" of the Palestinian people.
Bushra Khalidi said that the collective punishment of the Palestinian people had started “before October 7”.
“Israel has had decades of policies and practices that coerce Palestinian communities. That happens in Gaza and the West Bank through the demolition of homes, forcibly displacing entire communities,” she said.
“Cutting off water and cutting off electricity to a civilian population that is being relentlessly bombed, with nowhere to go when all borders have been closed ... Israel also restricts aid, which amounts to collective punishment under international law and a war crime.”
She added there is a “looming famine” in Gaza, with more than half of people starving and most, if not all, eating just one meal a day “simply because aid is not able to come in”.
“If that doesn't amount to collective punishment, I really don't know what does,” she said.
Don’t get me wrong, no Westminster party fully covered themselves in glory yesterday.
But why can’t anyone from Scottish Labour publicly acknowledge that UK Labour’s intervention took the possibility of acknowledging the “collective punishment” of the Palestinian people fully off the table?
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel