In what sense? I guess people might feel a little more represented. Labour could have used one of its own opposition days in order to forward their own motion; instead they had to be spurred into action by the SNP. Let's not pretend Starmer's amendment was provoked by an overriding concern for the Palestinian people. SNP aren't exactly new born babes either but their motion reflects a widely held view and represents a position that is deserving of a vote in its own right. By denying a vote on this more strongly worded statement constituents were denied an opportunity to explicitly see where their representatives stood. Instead the section of the population who's opinions the SNP statement reflects feel even further shut off from institutional representation.
As I say I'm not particularly scandalised by the content of Labour's amendment itself or the fact that Hoyle took it up. It's a fairly lame statement motivated by Starmer protecting his own backside but it also needed to be that lame in order to peel off enough Tories to pass. It also reflects a widely held position in the coutnry that is deserving of a vote in its own right. Fine, take it up! What I think is scandalous is that this position was essentially allowed to gazump the SNP one and the Speakers decision denied the SNP its parliamentary rights, made a mockery of the debate and embarrassed the fecking country - leaving whatever motion was actually passed buried beneath equal parts anger and laughter. Like yeah, at least it got passed but it's not exactly covered in glory and might well have passed anyway, and with more dignity, if SNP precedence had been observed.