When is SNP policy not SNP policy? Apparently when the (wee spiv) Salmond decides to change it, he does not need a conference decision it would seem, how else can we explain his utterances on the Queen. Going by what he is now saying the Queen under independence will be de facto the Scottish Head of State. The Salmond line is now the following, "since the creation of the Scottish Parliament the policy is for an independence referendum which will include the long standing policy for the Queen and her successors to be the Scottish Head of State" OK I'm not a member of the SNP but; I take an interest in such matters and I knew nothing of such a policy and I'm sure I would have had something to say about the hypocrisy of such a position.
Rewind to 1997 the scene is the Rothesay Pavilion the occasion is the SNP conference the debate is the future of the Monarchy under an independent Scottish SNP Government, the decision was and I quote "a referendum will be held on the question of whether or not to retain the Monarch as Head of State for Scotland" Party leader Salmond spoke against the motion and lost he then said "the leadership will respect the view of the party" quite unequivocal eh? no shades of grey eh? the party took a democratic decision to hold a referendum on the Monarchy and the leader endorsed the decision. So that's that then isn't it? well, remember this is the SNP where democracy is a sham and only exists when Salmond (the spiv) agrees to it, I do hope you braveheart SNP members are reading this and sharpening your pencils to attack me, I can hardly wait to hear from you. The fraudulent party response is that it has been party policy to keep the Queen since its formation in 19 34 or put another way the SNP conference in Rothesay in 19 97 did not actually take place so says the leader and what the leader says goes right?
A leader overturning a policy decision because it doesn't suit him or her would be a dangerous thing to do in any party except the SNP under Salmond (the spiv) that is the embarrassing truth about the SNP members, he knows he can do anything he wants because his membership is completely spineless he can and does hold the ordinary members in contempt and he is right to do so. OK I might be wrong but I see no evidence of it. The abolition of the hated Windsor Monarchy is one of the main reasons that a lot of people were attracted to the SNP, where are they now, if they are not prepared to speak out on this betrayal then why are they still in the party, just what do they mean by independence? Is it not about time we heard from at least one or two of them, my guess is that they will all come to heel behind their lord and master Alex (the SPIV) Salmond. 'such a parcel o rogues'