Angus Robertson faces SNP fury over Israel meeting in leaked letter

[Nearly Sane]

Ructions in SNP about meeting with an Israeli ambassador


https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,exclusive-angus-robertson-faces-snp-fury-over-israel-meeting-in-leaked-letter

[Nearly Sane]

Quite incredible tweet from John Mason SNP MSP


https://x.com/JohnMasonMSP/status/1824560329352941820

[Nearly Sane]

Quite incredible tweet from John Mason SNP MSP


https://x.com/JohnMasonMSP/status/1824560329352941820

The whip removed from Mason. Can't see him getting it back.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg791g2z8zyo

[jeremyp]

Ructions in SNP about meeting with an Israeli ambassador


https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,exclusive-angus-robertson-faces-snp-fury-over-israel-meeting-in-leaked-letter

Incredible that a member of the Scottish government can't even meet with a representative with Israel. Members of the SNP need to grow up.

[jeremyp]

Quite incredible tweet from John Mason SNP MSP


https://x.com/JohnMasonMSP/status/1824560329352941820

Well he is right. If Israel wanted to wipe out the Palestinians, they could have done so by now.

Bickering about whether to call the action genocide or not is a pathetic waste of time.

[Nearly Sane]

Well he is right. If Israel wanted to wipe out the Palestinians, they could have done so by now.

Bickering about whether to call the action genocide or not is a pathetic waste of time.

And playing down deaths because there could have been more is idiocy.

[Nearly Sane]

Incredible that a member of the Scottish government can't even meet with a representative with Israel. Members of the SNP need to grow up.

I think the issue is that the remit of the meeting was played up by the Israeli ambassador as  supportive and that the news and decision hadn't been managed or agreed internally.

[jeremyp]

And playing down deaths because there could have been more is idiocy.

Who's playing down the deaths?

[Nearly Sane]

Who's playing down the deaths?

The tweet from Mason does that

[jeremyp]

The tweet from Mason does that

What? you think a death somehow means more just because somebody erroneously labels it "genocide"?

[Nearly Sane]

What? you think a death somehow means more just because somebody erroneously labels it "genocide"?

No. I think saying that there could have been many more killings plays down those that have happened. Also that there could have been many more killings doesn't stop something from being a genocide,  so Mason's tweet plays down the deaths that have happened to make a point that is irrelevant to whether or not it is genocide.

[jeremyp]

No. I think saying that there could have been many more killings plays down those that have happened. Also that there could have been many more killings doesn't stop something from being a genocide,  so Mason's tweet plays down the deaths that have happened to make a point that is irrelevant to whether or not it is genocide.

Why is it so important to you to apply the label "genocide" to any particular action?

[Nearly Sane]

Why is it so important to you to apply the label "genocide" to any particular action?

It's not. As already covered, it's that the tweet downplays the killings by saying that there could be have been more.

[jeremyp]

It's not. As already covered, it's that the tweet downplays the killings by saying that there could be have been more.

It's not downplaying the killings. It's making a point that what is happening in Gaza is not genocide.

[Nearly Sane]

It's not downplaying the killings. It's making a point that what is happening in Gaza is not genocide.

No, it's downplaying the killings. Again as already covered that there might be more is irrelevant to whether it's genocide or not. That Israel could have killed more people as a point only downplays the killings.

[Nearly Sane]

Apology statement from Robertson

[ProfessorDavey]

Is foreign policy a matter devolved to the Scottish government?

[Nearly Sane]

Is foreign policy a matter devolved to the Scottish government?

No.

[ProfessorDavey]

No.

Which rather begs the question - why was Robertson meeting the Israeli ambassador in an official capacity in the first place?

[Nearly Sane]

Which rather begs the question - why was Robertson meeting the Israeli ambassador in an official capacity in the first place.

Habit and repute? It's not new, though the role that Robertson has is one engineered to give the impression  that there has been some devolution of it.

And I'm sorry to see that you have given up on the correct use of begging the question.

[ProfessorDavey]

Habit and repute? It's not new, though the role that Robertson has is one engineered to give the impression  that there has been some devolution of it.

So over-reaching then.

I can see why portfolio holders in devolved assemblies/parliaments may meet with key members of foreign governments to support inward investment into their area, or to promote tourism etc. But if I'm getting this right the purpose of Robertson's meeting was to indicate the Scottish Government's position on the conflict and a ceasefire. While Robertson is perfectly entitled to express his opinions on this matter as a private individual, or even as an MSP, but to do so on behalf of the Scottish Government, under the guise of officialdom doesn't seem appropraite to me.

[Nearly Sane]

So over-reaching then.

I can see why portfolio holders in devolved assemblies/parliaments may meet with key members of foreign governments to support inward investment into their area, or to promote tourism etc. But if I'm getting this right the purpose of Robertson's meeting was to indicate the Scottish Government's position on the conflict and a ceasefire. While Robertson is perfectly entitled to express his opinions on this matter as a private individual, or even as an MSP, but to do so on behalf of the Scottish Government, under the guise of officialdom doesn't seem appropraite to me.

Again, it's not new, and given there is a grey area about meeting with other countries ambassadors created by the devolution settlement, difficult to restrict. It's obviously in the SNP's interests to push the boundaries of such contact but I couldn't say when the first instance happened but it's not recently, and I can't swear that it didn't happen ever prior to 2007.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again, it's not new, and given there is a grey area about meeting with other countries ambassadors created by the devolution settlement, difficult to restrict. It's obviously in the SNP's interests to push the boundaries of such contact but I couldn't say when the first instance happened but it's not recently, and I can't swear that it didn't happen ever prior to 2007.

Just becasue it isn't new doesn't make it right.

And it isn't the notion of meeting with an ambassador in an official capacity that is the problem - I can see plenty of reasons why a meeting between an executive member of a devolved body would be completely appropriate - e.g. to discuss trade, or tourism, or cultural links. The point is that the purpose of the meeting should sit within the devolved responsibilities of that body. In this case it doesn't appear to be.

[Nearly Sane]

Just becasue it isn't new doesn't make it right.

And it isn't the notion of meeting with an ambassador in an official capacity that is the problem - I can see plenty of reasons why a meeting between an executive member of a devolved body would be completely appropriate - e.g. to discuss trade, or tourism, or cultural links. The point is that the purpose of the meeting should sit within the devolved responsibilities of that body. In this case it doesn't appear to be.

I didn't say it was right but if it started many years ago then it's been accepted by the UK govt by habit and repute.

As to restricting the meetings, imagine the meeting had been primarily to discuss an inward investment, if there is no chance to consider possible human rights violations of the investing govt, that seems problematic to the decision. I don't think the devolution settlement rules out such consideration or expressing it in such meetings, and as already covered it hadn't been stopped in the past.

[Nearly Sane]

Has this been 'accepted by the UK govt'? Evidence please.
Sure - but that would req

I don't think the devolution settlement rules out such consideration or expressing it in such meetings, and as already covered it hadn't been stopped in the past.

I take it there's something missing?