The motion could have been worded differently and still consistent with what they had been saying . Your not naive enough to think this wording just comes by random.
The sulking to me shows where the priorities are. They are working with the right wingers because the speaker wouldn’t let them get one over their main rivals. Maybe they think it will look good on their election material if they can say they forced out the English speaker.
I don’t think it is contentious to say the bill was aimed at causing difficulty for labour, that has been the view of every single political commentator I have heard. I think only the SNP have stated this is not the case! At the end of the day politicians play politics, I know in the past you say SNP didn’t, but when the kool aid wore off a bit I think you reversed that review.
In terms of whose view is better/worse then that has to be discussed in the perspective that neither view has made any difference to governmental policy or what actually happens in terms of their being a ceasefire. At least labour are thinking ahead to a time where they may have some influence, I think SNP accept they have no influence so can say what they want.