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 🙄
Where have you been?
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.
@Bayard: Here you go:
https://natcen.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-09/BSA_39_Briefing_paper.pdf
Your link doesn’t support what you suggest it supports.
It says “25% of people in England support independence of Scotland”. But that’s in the context of the most recent referendum, in Scotland, rejecting independence. You could validly express this result as being “75% support whatever the Scots chose in a referendum”.
If the Scots choose independence in a referendum, most English people would think that Scotland should be independent.
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.
Heh-heh, Adolf Hitler certainly knew how “the wisdom of the crowds” works. He said that masses are feminized, hence when talking to crowds one needs to appeal to emotions, not to facts and reasoning.
In R P Warren’s “All the King’s Men” Willie Stark brilliantly uses this method in his speeches. Initially, “Willie went out and buttonholed folks on the street and tried to explain things to them. You could see Willie standing on a street corner, sweating through his seersucker suit, with his hair down in his eyes, holding an old envelope in one hand and a pencil in the other, working out figures to explain what he was squawking about, but folks don’t listen to you when your voice is low and patient and you stop them in the hot sun and make them do arithmetic…”
But then came Willie’s breakthrough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UDQh5bTeR8&t=202s
@Yuri K: Thanks for the link to the Youtube clip, which looks very interesting. I’ve now ordered my own copy of the film All the King’s Men on DVD. For a moment I thought it was based on Sinclair Lewis’s novel It can’t happen here, but it’s based on another novel by Robert Penn Warren (which I’ve ordered as well).
MJ: Anytime! The book is a masterpiece, and the old 1949 movie is way better than the newer 2006 one (Sean Penn as Willie?! Kate Winslet as Anna Stenton?! OMG…). Hope you’ll enjoy both.
But the story tells us that for an outsider to succeed in politics on his own, he needs to be a brilliant demagogue, like Willie Stark (or his prototype Hughey Long, or Hitler, or Donald Trump). Once Willie Stark had learned that his notebook with numbers had no effect on Mississippi rednecks, he’d simply come up on stage and shout “I see buckets of blood!.. Give me a meat ax!!!” and the crowds cheered in extasy.
(just saying…)
“Iteratively” When you see terminology like that- is it even a word?- you realise that the dead hand of the managerial class (de)composes the whole enterprise.
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’
You’re arguing with a buzzphrase that assumes your conclusion.
It’s obvious that a British-level political party has to be based in London, just as a Scottish-level political party would be based in Edinburgh or Glasgow and not Orkney or Shetland.
Sometimes you can’t get what you want just by imagining you’ve already got it.
Also if you annoy someone enough they will tell you to f*ck off.
Those for whom Scottish independence is the most important issue (rather than e.g. fighting the rich in Scotland etc.) should stop whingeing and expecting Jeremy Corbyn to “allow” them to have their cake and eat it. Nobody is stopping them from founding a Scottish party, which could then federate with whoever there’s a mutual desire with. Just do it and good luck.
They might find it hard to find someone to federate with, though, given that there may not be an appropriate English-level party available.
Let me spell this out. There would probably only be a British-level party available, namely Your Party. And guess what, it would have a fair amount of supporters in Scotland. So you would have to tell those people they’re lapdogs of Mr Posh in England, or “self-haters”, or people satisfied with “branch office” crumbs from the English guy’s table. That is extremely insulting and you would come across like swivel-eyed cultists. Those on the Scottish left who either support the union or who don’t think independence is the big issue are NOT lackeys of English rule, or stupid.
Incidentally, “those who play games professionally tend to play them well”, and nobody is likely to outplay Jeremy Corbyn at all this boring sh*t regarding programmatic paper-chewing and resolutions and process that he has been doing all his life.
“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 would bother with them Craig, keep your dignity intact and stay in the wider Yes movement.
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.
If it was based in Edinburgh, would that prove that England is a colony of Scotland?
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
Indeed Peter hits the nail on the head with that thread, there are a huge number of folk in Scotland – who are utterly disenfranchised with the current set up at Holyrood.
So you don’t care if Reform and Tories become the next Scottish government?
The SNP need to be removed they are the real road block to dissolving the illegal union – in order to do that, there will be some years of – shall we call it suffering under foreign parties at Holyrood.
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.
Huh? There are parts of South Wales where the middle classes, mostly connected with the state sector, love the “Welsh medium” as a means for getting “jobs for the boys”, and where working class Welsh people detest them and call them the “Welshies” – an admirable expression of anti-nationalist consciousness and understanding.
E.g. there are state-mandated bilingual signs in areas where hardly anyone has spoken Welsh for generations. The word is “performative”.
Language revivalism is about the most reactionary movement in existence. Again it is insulting to people and saying they aren’t Welsh enough because they don’t speak the language that maybe half their ancestors did in 1800.
That Alec Salmond’s party calls itself “Alba” is an insult to people’s intelligence too.
“Language revivalism is about the most reactionary movement in existence. Again it is insulting to people and saying they aren’t Welsh enough because they don’t speak the language that maybe half their ancestors did in 1800.”
I’m glad I’m not Welsh, because that’s not only insulting to the Welsh, but patronising in a way that is peculiar to the monoglot English. Sure, government attempts to promote the Welsh language are mainly performative, but when I said “the Welsh” I didn’t mean the Welsh government, nor did I mean that tiny minority of the English-speaking inhabitants of Wales who learn Welsh in order to get on in society. What I meant was those, mainly working class, Welsh parents who have Welsh as the language of the home and bring up their children speaking Welsh as their first language, and all those Welsh who have a genuine fondness for their language and do not support it as some Faragiste display of nationalism.
I’m not aware of any pushback by the locals, so unless you’re welsh/Scots I’d suggest you butt out and take your twaddle elsewhere.
BR: “… where working class Welsh people detest them … “
As someone brought up in and currently living in south Wales, with a 100% solidly working class background, this is certainly news to me.
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.
This seems to make the case for the Greens more compelling, especially for non-English voters. But it may also fragment the center/ left vote further.
Is there any evidence that the Greens would/ could tackle UK military spending/ NATO membership, or is it more likely they will copy the militaristic stance of the German Greens?
Polanski’s public comments have been ambiguous.
If it insists on being a London/England Party, then Scotland and Wales should form parties of their own, with their own names, constitutions and policies. They could then decide to ally themselves to Your Party, or not, depending on the members’ wishes. I suspect – given the inability of Your Party to cross the road in an orderly manner – that they wouldn’t want to.
Your missing the point even if they did form parties of their own Westminster can still say NO.
“London/England party” – lol.
But yes, Scottish “independence above all” types should form their own party.
“You[r’e] missing the point. [E]ven if they did form parties of their own[,] Westminster can still say NO.” (Tweetese corrected.)
Yep. You ain’t got any right to federate with people who don’t want to federate with you. Or have an open border with them. Or join their customs union. Etc.
Craig, I’ve stated for days that Your Party is a unionist party with England not being an equal partner but holding all power. My main concern has been your roll at the UN on behalf of Scotland and will your membership of Your Party affect this I do not have a problem with you joining Your party its your choice but leave Scotland out.
I honestly believe that both in England and in Scotland the peoples no longer want to be united under the UK and here was a opportunity for Your party to firmly stand on a ticket of passing an Act of once elected given devolved parliaments the right to decide without Westminster involvement that’s democracy. After all we in Scotland have no democracy at all, its only in England and as it stands I would have thought Your party would have known this and acted accordingly how wrong was I.
I too signed up to Your Party on day one and sent an email about the constitutional question in Scotland and since then I have never received any further emails from Your party, for me if a person or a party is genuine it isn’t hard to give a straight answer to a simple question does Scotland have the right to leave this union and on what basis is it.
What I’ve read hear is all about centralized control and England’s continued dominance on the constitutional question which must end. I am looking for a party to vote for in next year election and here was Your Party’s opportunity to secure my vote and they blow it.
When Your party started I thought here is a party who will stand in every nation in this union and if it was to be something other than a unionist party it had to stand on a ticket of every nation in the union have the right to decide without Westminster consent, who wrong was I. Its this attitude from Your party that’s made it the same as any other unionist party and I’m entirely surprised you joined, I would ask you to do the right thing for Scotland and stand down from representing us at the UN, both can’t continue.
Craig, you can’t have a federal party of the left. It’s like wanting a circle with right angles. If you’ve got them, it isn’t a circle, and if it IS a circle, you haven’t got right angles. The left is about control, power and centralisation. These are the things that make it the left.
” The left is about control, power and centralisation. These are the things that make it the left.”
Well hardly, the current government and all the previous ones of whatever party have been about “control, power and centralisation”. What is happening with Your Party is that it is trying to start how it would like to go on, i.e. be an oligarchy, which is the natural form of government, whether “left” or “right” and taps into the deep-seated human desire for power and to belong to an exclusive group that has something in common.
Biological determinism? Oh dear.
“Biological determinism? Oh dear.”
Not by most people’s definitions of the term, but of course, possibly by yours.
“…the deep-seated human desire for power and to belong to an exclusive group that has something in common.”
Is this a quite from Mein Kampf?
“The left is about control, power and centralisation. These are the things that make it the left.”
Huh?? I’m guessing if I said look at Hitler, you’d say he was on the left. But how about capitalism in general? How can anybody nowadays doubt its tendency towards concentration and centralisation? Every year brings more proof that Karl Marx was right about this.
There are about 3000 billionaires. That’s about 1/27500 of 1% of our species. They own about 13% of wealth.
The left do tend towards ‘big government’ where the state controls everything. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production and distribution, I wouldn’t call Starmer’s Labour socialist but they have extended the state’s reach into what we can say and access online, means tests for benefits and so on. The obverse to this is ‘laissez-faire’ capitalism where business operates with no state controls or regulations whatsoever. The closest the UK ever came to this in modern times would be Thatcher in the 1980s where the government left the economy to market forces; and we know how well that worked out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire#Europe
“Socialism is state ownership of the means of production and distribution,”
Socialism is about attempting to stop a disproportionate amount of the rewards from commerce accruing to the owners of capital and to rentiers and moneylenders. In the past state ownership of the means of production and distribution was tried as a means of achieving this end, with less than spectacular results. However, simple answers to complex problems are a politician’s stock in trade and we are doomed to have these simple answers be tried and for them to fail, only for the same bad idea to be tried again a few years later with a “this time it’s different” mindset and, predictably, fail again. Thus socialists keep on thinking that state ownership is a panacea rather than a solution to a very limited set of problems.
Those who are interested in party branding and whether the movers and shakers in Your Party are going to find any brain cells in that department may like to look at the case of the party called D66 that has done so well in the Dutch election.
One wonders what y/our party policy jinks will say when asked as to the real possibility that the nuclear non proliferation agreements, indeed most classification of these weapon types, which is running out in January 2026, are going to be extended, or renegotiated and what these steps should include?
With all those countries that posess the ability to use and or produce these weapons taking part in this crucial theatre to provide global military security for most of Humanity, will there be a positive outcome achievable?
Be interesting to hear what aspirational future power brokers have to add to reality and fairly urgent facts.
Any genuine party or member wanting to make progress on the constitutional question like Your Party or Craig Murray would have at the heart of its policy to return the constitutional question back to the country’s where it belong By passing a Act of parliament and making it legal for these country’s to leave without Westminster consent a federal party doesn’t achieve this goal, Mr Murray I’ve lost all respect for you and I’ve noticed you have given an answer to my question are you stepping down form being the Ambassador for Scotland to the UN because you are clearly not the right person for the job after joining a unionist party, it would appear your interest is fame and fortune.
It could be formed with a central administrative office to coordinate and carry out work delegated by the Assemblies of Scotland, Wales, N Ireland, and a number of other regions of similar population size, such as, say, Cornwall-Devon, Yorkshire, Marches, MIdlands, Anglia, Rheged, etc.
There needs to be a minimum unanimously agreed policy to be carried forward by the future YP Government at Westminster, along with a unified and centralised administrative centre providing back-room services and coordinating and providing communications, etc.
But not only each Nation, (excluding England), but each Region could then self-determine additional local policy details.
However, laws affecting us all, need to be identical all-over, and simplified; as do the inter-regional transport systems, power distribution, control of utility companies exec salaries, and taxes, (since our HMRC is centralised!), but I assume a degree of local taxation (‘poll-tax/Council Charge) would continue locally – with some supplemented by a centrally levied adjustment for tourism, etc
Thanks Craig, very helpful. So many people posting comments, if indeed they are people not bots, appear to misunderstand ( wilfully ?) the concept of consultation. I will engage with the consultation, like many others, and then decide whether I wish to be a part of the result.
Craig, once you have seen the error of your ways (!) I will welcome you as a fellow member of the Green Party.
I don’t know what you’re even doing in this party Craig.
Corbyn and his zio pals will soon kick you out for being an Assadist, Putinist, Hamas supporter and then where will you be?