The draft Your Party constitution is for a highly centralised, London-based party which echoes the Labour Party. It “devolves” – they literally use the word – power from the centre to non-autonomous entities in Scotland and Wales.
We need a Federal party – a completely different approach – where authority lies with the members, and is granted to the executives firstly of the Scottish, Welsh and English parties, and then to the Federal executive, as the members wish.
The current draft reflects the British nationalist ideal that the UK is essentially England and that Scotland and Wales are some sort of add-ons for which special provision must be made. Therefore there are supposed to be Scottish and Welsh subsidiary – not equal – parties, whereas England does not have a separate party but is presumed to be the main body of the organisation.
Scotland and Wales are treated separately as “nations” while England isn’t. It is just assumed to be identical with the party as a whole. This is typical of the unthinking Anglocentrism of the authors.
I do not see how any Scot can respectably subscribe to the party on its currently drafted constitution.
I have therefore sent my written suggestion for Amendment to a true Federal format.
This is the original:
This is the amendment which I have submitted:
The draft constitution does not include the north of Ireland at all. I do not know if the party plans to operate there. I assume the omission means not.
I would urge members – not just those in Scotland and Wales – to support this fundamental change in the way the party is structured. Unless there is a genuine federal structure, Your Party will be dead in the water in Scotland. The pledge it will not be a “branch office” needs to have concrete form.
———————————
My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.
Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.
Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.
Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
“a highly centralised, London based party”
So, it doesn’t represent England either.
RIP
Is Corbyn a fool or a fifth columnist?
I was impressed by Corbyn’s Alternative McTaggart Lecture that Peter pointed to earlier today in an earlier thread. Corbyn sounded to me like no fool, and also a strong supporter of good journalism (and that from the perspective of being an actual former journalist, something I didn’t know previously). Also his strong support for public broadcasting (the BBC, particularly, but updated for the modern age) and last but not least Democracy itself.
A fool.
Corbyn has spent all his life building for the next election.
This is so unexpected 🙄
A party that would advocate for a break-up of the country it intends to govern? Political fantasy. Corbyn’s party needs to appeal to the majority of UK citizens – that vast majority who oppose creating even more borders. Left wing ideology always meant universalism and internationalism, not tribalism.
“that vast majority who oppose creating even more borders.”
Which vast majority? Link me to a poll, please.
Can any member propose amendments in YP to the leadership? Is it only VIPs or people selected by lot who can decide whether it will be discussed at a forthcoming conference?
in the Your Party members’ portal there is a list of “TEXTS FOR CROWDEDITING” which include the Standing Orders, Constitution, Political Statement, and Year 1 Organisational Strategy. Any member can approve or dispute parts of each text using the web interface. The intro page says:
“Help shape Your Party’s founding documents!
We promised to do things differently — and this is where it begins. Below you will find the first drafts of Your Party’s four founding documents: our Political Statement, Constitution, Standing Orders, and Organisational Strategy. Together, they set out our principles, our purpose, and how we organise to win. But they’re not final — these are just drafts. The final product is in your hands. Over the coming weeks, members will debate and amend these documents at regional assemblies, while you can also suggest edits through this Crowdediting tool. Harnessing the wisdom of a mass movement, the documents will evolve iteratively in response to member feedback, before amendments are voted on by delegates at our founding conference. The final decision will then be taken by all members in online votes. This is real democracy in action — get involved, as we build a new party by and for the people, not the powerful.”
The portal doesn’t seem to have any provision for VIP status so nobody’s input would be privileged over anyone else’s. To elevate his own recommendations over those of ordinary members Craig would have to catch the ear of somebody in head office. Maybe he could even be appointed as a spad on the basis of acknowledged expertise. But I’m not sure how to swerve the criticisms he made about closed circles of unelected influencers and advisers in an earlier article (It’s Your Party and I’ll Cry If I Want To).
Thanks, that’s helpful. I wonder how the “crowd editing” will work when people have differing views – the picture of a tug o’ war comes to mind. Does a moderating editor (delegated by the leadership, I suppose) “fix” parts of the document where s/he considers that a consensus exists, so that it can’t be changed further?
“Harnessing the wisdom of a mass movement, the documents will evolve iteratively in response to member feedback, before amendments are voted on by delegates at our founding conference.”
This is f*cking tragic.
Are they going to have the same “crowdiness” when “Jeremy” does a stint with Andrew Neil or Laura Kuenssberg, a week before the election? I am not joking. That is the kind of thing that wins or loses lots of votes. Can you imagine him picking his mobile phone, looking for what the “mass movement” tells him about how to answer the question?
The use of the word “wisdom” here comes from the notion of “the wisdom of crowds”, used solely by people who know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about crowd psychology and how it works.
The “we do things differently” thing reminds me of when “occupiers” were into doing “jazz hands” and talking about “general assemblies” ad nauseam. In the end, nothing of any substance got done differently.
Couldn’t agree with you more. It’s throwing a bone to these nations – like mine – as if they’re going to be satisfied with getting their own ‘regional office’
“We need a Federal party – a completely different approach – where authority lies with the members, and is granted to the executives firstly of the Scottish, Welsh and English parties, and then to the Federal executive, as the members wish.”
Your Party:
“Political parties may be established in Scotland (Alba) and Wales (Cymru), as in England, but the devolved national structures – including governance and leadership – shall be determined by Scottish and Welsh members at their own founding conferences, to be held in the Party’s first year.”
Craig:
“Decision making power will not be devolved from the federal centre. It rests with the members and flows up to the various bodies of the various national parties.”
Doesn’t that basically amount to the same thing, with members at national levels deciding their own constitutions?
I humbly refer honourable readers to my previous answer:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2025/10/i-have-joined-your-party/comment-page-2/#comment-1088804
It doesn’t at all amount to the same thing. Firstly it isn’t a thing at all, it is a vague aspiration to do a thing sometime in the next 12 months. Secondly as I explain it treats England as the main body and Scotland and Wales needing devolved structures which are very much subsidiary, just like the branch office that is Scottish Labour.
I told you it is a unionist party!
Federal!
Where will the party be registered with the Electoral Commission?
For the whole of GB presumably. But the Electoral Commission is based in London. This proves Scotland is a colony.
There are no independence parties at Holyrood – yet around half of Scots want the illegal union to be over – I like many other Scots have NO party to vote for next year – it looks like I’ll be spoiling my ballot paper.
Interesting post from Peter Bell on the “Spoil the Vote” campaign recently in Ireland…
https://peterabell.substack.com/p/looking-at-alternatives
Do we perhaps need separate Your Parties for Wales and for Scotland (Your Party Cymru, Your Party Scotland)?
Whatever, I would suggest it is essential that the party/parties stress what the various social groups it/they want to represent have in common, and play down their differences. I’m thinking, I suppose, partly of the TRANS issue. It is clear to me that this issue could be fatally divisive for the new party/parties. Better leave it open.
Your amendment is admirable, Craig. At present Wales and Scotland have different devolved powers. Scotland donated its king James to rule both England and Scotland, while Wales conquered England when Henry Tudor defeated Richard III, and so his son, Henry VIII, automatically ruled both England and Wales. Much as naming his eldest son Arthur, to be Prince of Wales, would have given Wales its very own King Arthur, the subjugation of Welsh laws to English laws under Henry VIII still rankles, despite Elizabeth I having had the bible translated into Welsh, having been brought up by Welsh speaking Blanche Parry, who was the mother that Ann Boleyn could never be, Wales still does not have the autonomy that Scotland has retained.
Wales, England, and Scotland all need to have devolved energy and mineral controls over their sovereign territories. Wales doesn’t get control over its Crown Estate lands and resources, while Scotland does, and Wales still feels very much like a colony due to the limitations for financial autonomy, imposed by England. The drowning of villages for water for Liverpool and Birmingham was a grief that is not forgotten. The loss of European funding for the poorest region in the EU was not replaced as per the Brexit promises.
I doubt Jeremy or Sultana have any actual sense of the ongoing sense of injustice experienced in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, and yet greater autonomy is not without unknown and unpredictable risks.
” the subjugation of Welsh laws to English laws under Henry VIII still rankles”
As far as I know, prior to Henry VIII bringing Wales under English law, the Welsh were under Welsh law, but only in matters pertaining entirely to Wales and the Welsh. The English, even in Wales, came under English law. In case of a dispute between a Welshman and an Englishman, English law trumped Welsh law, so the Welsh, under their own law, were very much second class citizens.
“Cymru”. One in four people in Wales speak Welsh. Maybe one in six or seven speak the language fluently.
That’s probably due to the fact that the (english) government banned the Welsh language decades ago. Although that has now changed, the repercussions are still filtering through.
The decline since that ban, such as it was, was lifted has been much faster than before that time. It is the fate of minority languages to decay as young people see the advantages in speaking the majority language but not the advantages of being bilingual. The same decline was seen in favour of Spanish in Welsh-speaking Patagonia and there was no ban. It has to be said that the Welsh are making much more of an effort to keep their ancient language than most other minority language speakers.
Didn’t stop Plaid Cymru winning a byelection last week.
They don’t need to reinvent the wheel, they could just lift the Liberal Democrat’s structure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Board_(Liberal_Democrats)
The Scottish Liberal Democrats are of course, firmly opposed to Scottish independence, and campaigned against in the 2014 referendum. But let’s not confuse policy with democratic structure.
For those who don’t already know, the term “branch office” is used in Scotland by supporters of the corrupt nationalist government, who rarely distinguish between Partei and Volk, to smear other Scottish political parties (Scottish Labour, Scottish Liberal Democrats, and Scottish Conservatives) as tools of English colonialists based in faraway (*bares fangs*) England.
In reality, all three have deep roots in Scotland.
Your previous article said “The Scottish Greens currently show good polling figures, but they are a rather strange party, entirely separate from the English Greens”
Maybe the YP leadership don’t want to see this happen with YP
Anyway, it doesn’t seem such a bad idea that the structure of the party should relate to the structure of the parliaments whose elections the party would be contesting
That would certainly be true if you intend to maintain that structure. But I don’t, and nor I suspect do the majority of the Scottish members.