Can someone please comment and shed some light on this?
Correct me if I'm wrong: this is a motion, on a motion, on a motion?
Indulging in party politics by explicity slagging off someone else for indulging in party politics? There are too many repititions here, my head hurts. Read for yourselves:
Short Title: Working Together on Child Poverty and the Minimum Wage
S3M-02659 Bob Doris (Glasgow) (SNP): That the Parliament
expresses its disappointment that Labour MSP Mary Mulligan should engage in party politics on the issue of child poverty by laying down her amendment, S3M-2621.1, to motion S3M-2621 (Ending the Shame of Child Poverty); condemns the amendment on the basis that it seeks to break the unity that exists across a broad spectrum of political parties on the important issue of the national minimum wage by implying that this important development in the fight against poverty was not supported by SNP MPs; notes that SNP MPs voted in favour of the national minimum wage more often than Tony Blair and as often as Gordon Brown MP but would not use this information to imply a lack of commitment to the national minimum wage from either of the aforementioned MPs; acknowledges that SNP MPs not only supported the Bill but took part in the committee which oversaw its progress; looks forward to the continuation of a cross-party approach to tackling child poverty, and hopes that Mary Mulligan MSP will once again be part of that cross-party approach.