Talk:Siol nan Gaidheal

Ultranationalists?

The term Ultranationalist seems a pretty strange word to use for this group. Ultranationalism usually means Neo-Nazi and other Far-right groups (such as these guys for example), now I don't know much about this organization but from the description in the article they don't sound particularly Ultranationalist to me. Radical Nationalists would perhaps be a better term, I mean these guys seem very similar to Sinn Fein, and nobody has ever called them Ultranationalist.--Hibernian 04:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your probably right about this - the term is misleading, and I have altered the article.--Shippers 22:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, I was previously a member of the SNP (Scottish National Party) in the 1990's and through that political party came into contact with people who were linked to these dangerous fruitcakes. What is not said here is that Stokes was a convicted felon (for non-political reasons - just a common crook and nothing more) who ran the SnG by brute force and violent threats. He fancied himself as some kind of Gangster or Godfather and there were rumours of him being involved in Drug dealing in Edinburgh. Yet he is glorified and whitewashed by the SnG as some kind of political saint or hero. In my opinion Ultranationalist is very apt and to the point.

Scotland to her credit has since the 19th century had a history of peaceful protests and honest open political movements, the SnG however advocated violence as a means to an end and this is in the face of democracy and the wishes of the Scottish people. They also had invented their own ridiculous version of the Knights Templars which they called the Black Chapter (all invention and hokum on their part) but sought to use this as a secret military wing of their group. I can tell you that I have sat in SNP branch meetings and heard members of that party openly discuss their membership of SnG and attempt (usually unsuccessfully) to recruit others.

It is true that the SnG modelled itself on the IRA, preached terrorism as a means to an end, and are pro-Roman Catholic, but let's face it the situation is quite different. Scotland is not Ireland, and the majority of Scots are not RC, but in fact protestant. The majority of Scots are actually pro-Unionist and vote for Unionist political parties - historically at the ballot box they reject the SNP every time.

The SnG attempted to find funding in the USA and Canada, by promoting their websites there and utilizing (as so many extremist groups have done) the US 1st Amendement to publish their opinions. Their 'Black Chapter' also sought to delude Americans into parting with cash to be 'knighted' by them. Americans and Canadians who appeared to be sympathetic to their causes were fed a course of misinformation and exaggeration of the situation in Scotland, as a way to keep their support and financial contributions flowing. The SnG was in fact a money making racket, which preyed on Romantic Nationalist sentiments.

I put it to you that the SnG are indeed Ultranationalist, that they are racist, politically extreme right of centre, that they were prepared to arm themselves and drill in military array. I consider the SnG to be an ongoing threat to Scotland, in that they claim that after Independence they will become active, and note that they dote on certain SNP MSP's such as Roseanna Cunningham - whom they believe share their extremist Republican opinions.

The SnG exploits the fact that the SNP ranks contain people of various political schisms, They range from Extremist Republican Marxists (1979 group) who sought to set up a left-wing Socialist Republic - membership of which included Alex Salmond the current SNP leader, anti-monarchists, to ex-Tories (on the political right). In short even some SNP MSP's are known to hold beliefs outside of the official SNP manifesto. If I had to some up the SnG - I would call them dangerous Fascists with criminal tendancies with links to the drug culture, who have successfully recruited from within the SNP. Realistically they have no support in Scotland their numbers are small.

---

"Dangerous Fascists, Criminal tendencies and links to drug culture"? I don't know that we are talking about the same organization here. This isn't the IRA.They have no secret military order. How do you define dangerous? They have no weapons, have never made overtones to overthrow any government whether in Edinburgh or in London, nor threatened to carry out any kind of terrorist activity. As for links with the drug culture, any evidence for that ridiculous statement? They don't take sides between Protestants and Catholics and much of what you say is rumor, hear say or own paranoid delusion.

-CM

Neutral Point of View?

This article is very biased and doesn't cite any sources. In fact, I've lived in Scotland all my life and have never even heard of Siol nan Gaidheal. I've certainly never felt "feelings of excitement and expectation" when the "kilted S.N.G. columns appeared", nor have I "flocked to join the ever-swelling ranks of Siol nan Gaidheal."

User:Martin Shipway has reverted it several times without explaination and his contibution history shows that he has only ever altered this article. I think he is a member of SNG using this article for propaganda.

--IslaySolomon 02:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is exaggerated propaganda at best. At worst I can think of a four letter word for it. I don't consider a handful of deluded young men, who Jackie Stokes once surrounded himself with as boys (for whatever reason and no good one I can think of) to be a Kilted column. I am always wary when anyone starts wearing Black Shirts - which was the symbol of Nazism in the UK before WWII worn by followers of Sir Oswald Mosley.

• "I've lived in Scotland all my life and have never even heard of Siol nan Gaidheal." - well you have now. ;) There's a guy who claims to be Scottish who had never heard of Jock Tamson's Bairns - well, that's worse I suppose. More neutral language may be in order, but I think the information that Martin Shipway has added is interesting, and most of it should remain in some form. p.s. If you look, you will see I have edited plenty of articles on different subject areas, in case you're wondering. p.p.s. I am only going to leave one NPOV notice, because that's enough. --MacRusgail 16:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't seriously suggesting that my having heard of something is an actual criteria for including it in wikipedia (if that were true goodness knows what it would look like :P ). My point is that if you take what is there at face value you get a grossly exaggerated impression of sng's size and significance.

I haven't added the { {totally disputed} } tag lightly. Large sections of the article still read like propaganda and/or make sweeping claims that could simply be fabricated. For instance:

"what opponents disparagingly labelled "Jacobite Romanticism" " - Weasel Words; who actually said this and when?

"...Siol nan Gaidheal was broken up by the force of the British State" - If this is actually true there'd be newspaper coverage that could be cited

"certainly young and old alike flocked to join the ever-swelling ranks of Siol nan Gaidheal" - "Flocked" and "young and old" have no actual meaning, a number should be given as well as a source

"what was known as "The Englishing of Scotland" " - Who said this and when? (also shouldn't it be "Anglicising")

"they worked unceasingly" - Meaningless peacock terms

"not one member of Siol nan Gaidheal was ever arrested by the police and charged with anything" - This is an incredibly broad claim to make without any evidence of the size of sng membership.

"a whole new generation of young people enthusiastically committed themselves to the cause of radical Scottish Nationalism." - Pure propaganda. How many young people committed themselves? And how do you measure enthusiasm?

"extremely well attended" - By how many?

"most incredible of all" - A matter of opinion.

Two that could be verified but aren't:

"first time opinion polls showed more than 50% support for total independence" - If this is true it should be easy to verify. Just cite a specific poll and the organisation that carried it out, or a news outlet that published it results.

"the Sun newspaper turned overnight from the Unionist to the Scottish Nationalist cause" - Again, very easy to verify, just cite two different editorials from that newspaper stating the two different opinions.

And, in my opinion, the most damning evidence of this page being written as propaganda:

"the explanation being that our country was in mourning"

"the determination of our Celtic-Gaelic warrior ancestors" - Whose country? Whose ancestors? Sng's supporters have actually lapsed into the first person.

The article also makes a passing reference to the Calton Hill vigil. Granted this is seen through the things-I-have-heard-of filter, but I'd have thought if sng organised this, it would be their one activity that received the most media coverage and should get more attention in the article.

Still, I'm glad people are taking an interest in this neglected article.

--IslaySolomon 19:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Martin Shipway et al.

A heated, but ultimately constructive, argument concerning this article is preserved below. The version to which you reverted it was biased to the point of being a communication from the organisation itself. Please understand that statements such as:

• "Whenever the kilted S.N.G. columns appeared, a shiver of excitement and expectation spread among friends and foes alike."

• "anyone seeing the drum beating, black banner waving, Colour Party in their Black Shirts and kilts couldn’t fail to be impressed and old and young alike flocked to join the ever-swelling ranks"

and

• "it is remarkable that this particular organisation was not destroyed by the British State"

are simply personal points of view rather than verifiable facts and fly in the face of wikipedia's NPOV principle.

Since you seem to be knowledgeable on this topic I suggest you devote your efforts to increasing the factual accuracy and overall quality of this article, rather than simply reverting it to a previous version and abandoning it.

Thanks.

---

---

Would the Korean (IP address lookup) Users currently defacing this article please desist as the defacements have no basis in fact, evidence or sources cited.

1. I am co-organiser of the Glencoe Rally where the picture was taken (Copyright issues regarding that photograph are pending) and it is organised by the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement and NOT Siol nan Gaidheal. This picture is misrepresentative and probably breaches copyright.

2. No relevant evidence has been cited for using this article to bash the Siol with

--Jarvisbaird 12:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Jarvis

---

1. If the picture is irrelivant it should, of course, be removed.

2. I have compared the two versions of the article. Are you seriously suggesting that phrases such as:

• "it is remarkable that this particular organisation was not destroyed by the British State"

• "anyone seeing the drum beating, black banner waving , Colour Party in their Black Shirts and kilts couldn’t fail to be impressed and old and young alike flocked to join the ever-swelling ranks"

inally, aand

• "...the explanation being that our country was in mourning for its lost sovereignty and nationhood."

are written from a neutral point of view and not simply statments by the organisation itself?

3. The more recent version of the article does cite sources, or rather a source, s.n.g's own website. In particular a page entitled "Race, Ethnicity & Nationality".

4. A large portion of the new article is, in fact, lifted from the existing article The History of the Scottish National Party. Are you suggesting this is an instance of "vandlism" and "defacement"

5. I really have to question the worth of this article. For all the evidence presented (i.e. none) this group could simply consist of a few people and a website.

---

I find it strange, as well as suspicious that a series of different IP addresses should want to refocus an article from a semi-neutral standpoint to an "anti-English" standpoint.

Racist claims are VERY serious and must be backed up with hard, verifyable evidence. At best the citations were spurious and at times misrepresentative.

Whether an organisation has two people or two thousand, it does not justify irrelevantly labelling them racist without the first shred of evidence.

The change was half-badly written, half lifted from another article with an irrelevant photograph added.

Dodgy IP addresses, badly written edits, irrelevant photographs... and all to justify an accusation of racism against the English.

The argument concerning the neutrality of the existing article is possibly a case in point. If people list them here then there wouldn't be problem and we could debate them.

I'm sorry, but I believe the "anti english" article version to be poppycock and does a disservice to this whole website.

--Jarvisbaird 19:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

---

The offending picture and references to "racism" have been removed. Altering this article was not meant as a partisan act or meant to be the opening salvo of flame war. Please, please consider point 2 above before another knee-jerk "RV vandalism".

I must, however, defend the use of material from another article. The history of the SNP article is well written and uncontested and using this material is a good way of avoiding bias.

"Whether an organisation has two people or two thousand, it does not justify irrelevantly labelling them racist without the first shred of evidence." I agree entirely with this statement. However:

• 1. If an organisation has only two people it does not belong in an encyclopedia.

• 2. If said organisation maintains a website featuring an extensive article on the issue of race, then they become slightly more difficult to defend.

Chambers Dictionary [1] defines racism as: 1 hatred, rivalry or bad feeling between races. 2 belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race or races over others, usually with the implication of a right to be dominant. 3 discriminatory treatment based on such a belief

On their page entitled "Demography: The White Flighter Phenomenon",[2] s.n.g. state "the patent existence of a Scottish Ethnicity from the English Border to the Pentland Firth and from Harris to Buchan". Having identified the Scots as a separate ethnic group they state that "a bustling English Settlement located within Scotland is not a healthy viable community at all. It is simply an intrusive English violation of our National Territory". The page concludes that "every English incomer at present is suspect, the good along with the bad".

The article also advocates forced repatriation. It states that "should we swap our English for [Scots living in England] it would offer the exciting and interesting prospect of so many Scots returnees, qualified primarily by their nationality, having to manage and administer a thousand projects formerly run by English flighters".

During the course of this article SnG identify the Scots and the English as two distinct races and advocates the preferential treatment of one race over the over. In the above case this consists of forcibly handing property owned by English people in Scotland to Scots who would be asked to return from England.

I therefore believe that SnG are indeed a racist organisation, by merit of believing one racial group deserving of better treatment than another. I further believe that SnG admit this freely in their promotional literature, specifically their official website.

In the spirit of constructiveness I have left any potentially inflammatory references to race out of the current version of the article.

As for the multiple IP addresses, there is nothing "suspicious" or "dodgy" about connecting to the internet though a dynamic proxy server. It is of particular use, however, if one is trying to protect oneself from groups such as the "Nine of Diamonds Project". This is a shadowy republican campaign group which uses its namesake as a calling card [3] and conducts MI6 style training [4]. Of course you would know all this as you are its "Chief of External Relations". (A word to the wise, most secret agents do not keep blogs.)

Scottish "ultra nationalism" and its relationship with mainstream nationalist politics is a genuinely interesting topic, which is worth documenting in the wikipedia. Perhaps a larger article on the topic as a whole would be more appropriate.

Finally, a personal question: As someone who considers allegations of racism extremely serious, why do you spend your free time burning flags?

---

I should be angry and defensive, but I'm not. It's most ingenious your post. I'm most impressed. (n.b. you don't see everything about the nine of diamonds project, but then you weren't meant to).

I'm never going to admit something is racist when it's not, but you're clearly very bright. Your Intelligence and persistance impresses me.

The fact you compromised shows character. Fantastic. Thanks. This has been most fulfilling. If the Siol want to revert back to what was, then it is their business.

So, to the whole "flag burning" business. I understand your question but I feel that this particular area is irrelevant to this article as public burnings do not seem to be their forte, though I'm partial myself. Either suggest another venue for this discussion (proxies welcome) or e-mail me @ jarvis.baird@googlemail.com

--Jarvisbaird 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

---

As the person who wrote the article which is now under heated discussion, I admit it appears to be biased in various places and has few citations. This was the first article I put on Wikipedia and I take the neutral point of view seriously. I will re-write the article to a more acceptable standard as soon as possible.

I kept reverting this back as I was annoyed at the sweeping changes made to it by someone who had condensed it to a very small version. I was made aware by a friend that this person re-wrote the article to contain accusations of racism and it was my idea that said person was biased toward Siol nan Gaidheal. I also admit that parts of it were taken from the site although the National Organiser of Siol was aware of this and granted approval.

I will review the article and write something more professional as soon as possible.

--Shippers 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Further comments

I again suggest that instead of leaving "fact" notices everywhere, that one will suffice.

"the Sun newspaper turned overnight from the Unionist to the Scottish Nationalist cause" - Again, very easy to verify, just cite two different editorials from that newspaper stating the two different opinions.

Comment - I remember this well, but it was partly a ploy to undermine Labour.

There has also been a questioning of the Calton Hill vigils for devolution. Again, very well known in Scotland, as were the mass marches organised by Scotland Forward which were supported by three out of four of the major Scottish parties. --MacRusgail 21:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I have amended this article to make it more neutral, taking into account the points made above. I have removed the 'disputed neutrality' banner although if you have any problems with the new article, please let me know. Thanks.

May I also say that I did not lift anything from the 'History of the Scottish National Party' page. Most of the stuff came from the Siol nan Gaidheal site, specifically an article entitled 'History of our Movement'. Other stuff came from the sources cited in the article. --Shippers 15:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Why has a lengthy and informative article been reduced by someone to a mere paragraph? This is not in the least bit informative. What was the point in this?? --195.93.21.42 18:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Tone

This page sounds rather more like a 'history' section on an organisation's website than an encyclopaedia entry.--Breadandcheese 03:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

True. But there are third party sources which could be used to fix it. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL And there are reliable sources which say that SnG "spawned both Scottish Watch and Settler Watch", both of which could be mentioned here. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Typo?

Is the lack of gràves in Siol nan Gaidheal (as opposed to Sìol nan Gàidheal) down to typographical probs or is this a deliberate non-use in the name, does anyone know? Akerbeltz (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Lack of etymology?

Please note that I do not speak any Gàidhlig whatsoever and therefore cannot speak reasonably to the etymology of words within Gàidhlig.

But as a native English speaker, I immediately saw siol and thought scion, which is perhaps somewhat archaic. I took the liberty of looking it up in the OED, and found that it is thought to be from the langues d'oïl cion (and the usual variety of spellings found in any archaic document, which needn't be repeated here), specifically Picard. Perhaps a Gàidhlig speaker could offer their opinion as to the etymology.

However, I would certainly argue strongly that scion certainly is a valid translation of siol and is, perhaps, more easily understood by English speakers as to its true meaning, if I understand the article correctly. At the very least, it could be more concisely stated. Jessica Schmidt (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, to begin with, I didn't write this article, I just tweaked some of the Gaelic. Generally, I agree that it could be written better.

Moving on to the etymology, that's a no. A definite one. As a rule of thumb, such random similarities of surface forms are generally just that, random coincidences. Sìol has its root in Indo-european *sēlon "seed", from which English "seed" is also derived. It's primary meaning is seed (plant or animal), but it also has the strong secondary meaning of "breed" or "genealogical line". Which is presumably why the author of this article went on a spree of explaining why there's no equivalant. I think with a good explanation of the root (I can do that some time next week), most instances of "sìol" in the text could then be replaced with "line". Akerbeltz (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Socialist vs Fascist

I'm reverting to socialist for now. I'm NOT saying it's either but at the moment, the only refs I can find say "ultranationalist" and "socialist" except a quote by some SNP guy calling them proto fascists. If they are, of course it's ok to add that but we really need a ref before labelling a party fascitst. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the fascism label. If a SNP guy once calls a group fascists that doesn't qualify to label them in Wikipedia's voice as such. And there seems to be a fair bit of WP:SYNTH involved in using the label. For further discussion see my comments here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Zzuuzz. By the same token I don’t think the “proto-fascist” accusation belongs in the lead; although not in WP’s voice it has undue prominence there. I think that it belongs in the History section, and that it should be accompanied by some statement to provides context—IIRC it was provoked by the schism of SnG from the SNP, whose leader would scarcely be expected to be complimentary under the circumstances. (I haven‘t reviewed all the sources in the article, but I wouldn‘t be surprised if such info is already there.) Further, although the racism claim is cited, ISTM that “anti-English racism“—by fellow ‘white‘ northwestern Europeans–is scarcely the first kind of racism that comes to mind nowadays, so should be qualified as such, as the source does. In fact I think I’ll WP:BOLDly change it to anglophobia, as described by that article, once I‘ve finished this post. Anyway, I would invite the users who have been edit-warring over this content to make their arguments here, rather than in edit summaries, please.—Odysseus1479 01:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think they are seriously classified as "fascist" or if that term has any meaning in a Scottish setting. They are not tied to the mainline UK far-right (BNP, NF, loyalist) politics. Obviously, they are Gaelic nationalists... apparently in a sense closer to the Irish model. I'm not sure that we should be quoting the partisan opimions of the more or less nauseating Tartan Tory/Masonic-type Gordon Wilson in the introduction. His opinion should be mentioned in the article perhaps, but not the introduction. It is worth remembering that Wilson's machinations propped up Thatcher's Tory government and he ripped out of Scottish nationalism the interesting elements (the radical socialists of the 79 Group, republican elements and the Gaelic nationalists), replacing it with pedestrian, Lowland Scots, capitalist, monarchist, Tartan Tory crap. So he had his own agenda as well. Síol nan Gáidheal's Sinn Féin-esque politics was apparently a frightening prospect for him. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That is just a political diatribe that has no place on Wikipedia. Brough87 (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

edit warring by liar

It is very obvious what you are doing. I am no expert but I am not a fool. The party has oonly recently been described as proto fascists in the infobox, as you well know. 177.72.1.102 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

There seems to be some dispute around the content of the article's lead section, namely whether it should contain a description of the group's political character or not. I think it would be absurd if the Wikipedia article for Siol nan Gaidheal, a very political group which is normally described in the mainstream press as ultra-nationalist, crypto-fascist or proto-fascist, does not address this in the opening paragraph. I rewrote the lead to add what I thought was a fairly balanced and well-cited summary of SnG's political views, but it has been moved to the bottom of the article. Can we keep this in the lead too? Zcbeaton (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zcbeaton: I thought your lead was fine and would support its inclusion in the lead. I wouldn't worry about the reversion by ApolloCarmb, he's a long-term sockpuppet user and frequent spammer of this page. Brough87 (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Jackie Stokes

I think he died years ago. Don't really have info, but seem to recall that.

"Proto-fascist", again.

I'm picking up on what zzuuzz said earlier: there is no good reason to use "proto-fascist" as a qualification; it seems that the only person calling them that was Gordon Wilson. And even if that was somehow a properly verified and valid observation, it should be qualified--and it's not. So User:Czello, I'm sorry, but "it's sourced" just doesn't cut it. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• And Jackattack1597, please be more careful with throwing the term "vandalism" around. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• As I've said elsewhere, I'd be fine with it being reduced to "fascist". Amending this as per the SNP talk page; "ultranationlist" seems to be the best compromise that's sourced — Czello 06:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I am very confused as to why a discussion (and therefore a supposed consensus) has been established on the SNP page instead of this one. It's not legitimate to do that in my view. Alssa1 (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that this article's descriptor doesn't have to match the SNP's. There didn't seem to be any opposition to both articles sharing the same phrasing, but if you want to re-open the debate I won't oppose you. — Czello 15:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)