Scottish Championship

[Andy Howie]

The good thing is there is now a working party that are going to resolve this. I was merely pointing out that the usage of code has different meanings. If I recall correctly Dougie made a minor amendment to the motion to change it to Country to get around this, but the initial wording was indeed ambiguous!

If you are wanting clear definitions

FIN - Player number assigned to players by FIDE containing a Country Code (normally 2 or 3 characters) and the players number
Country Designation - The three letter ISO 3166-1 alpha 3 code of a countries name

So SCO code can be either the Country code (40) or the ISO 3166-1 alpha 3 code but this was not defined in the motion hence I also believe this rendered it incompetent.

As an aside, I am also not going to be involved with the running of the Scottish this year. I have a residential part of my Uni course at the same time. I had thought about trying to get the dates changed so I could be there, but after what has happened and Alex's resignation because of it, I don't have the appetite to do so

[WBuchanan]

Thanks for those explanations Andy. Sorry you're stepping down next year, you'll be sorely missed, along with Alex , a hard double-act to follow.

The 2016 motion used the term 'SCO code' which was in widespread use in the run-up to the proposed constitution change and SGM in 2015, and it meant current affiliation (as opposed to country of initial registration, the one that has 24 for Scotland, 40 for England). It has been promoted in higher circles that having this code should guarantee eligibility, so the term was well known. I don't see the mystery or incompetence when a member uses it, and the alternative meaning is mostly unknown and highly unlikely anyway. Has there ever been a suggestion that you shouldn't be eligible to compete for the Championship unless you were initially registered as Scotland? Anyway as you say it was amended, presumably in an attempt to remove ambiguity, so should not be blamed for subsequent events. Cheers

[donaldheron]

Resignation Statement – Alex McFarlane


It is with considerable regret that I confirm that I have stepped down from my position as Director of the Scottish Championships.

This is as a direct result of the Chess Scotland AGM’s decision that the title should be shared between players on different scores.  I cannot accept that such a decision makes any sense whatsoever.  Had the decision been to withdraw the title from Matthew Turner and award it to Colin McNab due to a misinterpretation of the qualification regulations on my part then at least that result would have had some logic attached. 

It probably would not have affected my decision if that had been the motion passed, however, as there is a second matter which has to be taken into account.

I was asked by two players to confirm that Mr Turner was eligible for the title.  I replied that he was.  As the AGM has now ruled that I was in error in this respect I therefore misdirected these players. This erroneously given 'confirmation' may have deprived them of the opportunity of becoming Scottish Champion.  That reason alone is a sufficient cause for my resignation.

This decision was not taken lightly.  It was considered over a period of some weeks and it had been intimated to the President before the meeting took place that if it was passed then so too would be my time running the Scottish Championships.

I am proud and privileged to have run the event and to have been an arbiter at it for the number of years I have.  I wish the Championships and my successors as Director and Chief Arbiter well for the future.

It was a shock to read this.  I think that you should reconsider because it will be a big loss to Chess Scotland.  The problem, as usual, is that the rules are too complicated.  Surely every player should belong to one country and are eligible to be champion of that country and no other.  OK I realise that the rules are not as simple as that but why not?  Anyway I repeat - Please reconsider.

[Alan Tate]

Donald is right - Alex you should reconsider.

Also, something is really bothering me... The AGM report says I seconded the joint champion motion. I did not officially second anything?? I think I agreed in principle for the sake of diplomacy in a private email (or maybe on the forum) but I would have needed more facts, and the opinions of the people actually affected to make this decision and there were basically none available at that time.

[JMcNicoll]

well, there's a cat to throw into the pigeons. Did the AGM then pass a motion not properly seconded?

Can that motion stand or does it make the motion incompetent and despite passing does not now exist?

[Andy Howie]

Double checking with the CC but I believe it still stands as there were two seconders.

Proposed by Matthew Turner,
Seconded by Alan Tate and Jonathan Grant

[Alan Tate]

Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to what the official process is for seconding a motion?

[Ianbrownlee]

Hi Alan
I am commenting as a CS member and not admin director. I believe the process lies with the proposer submitting the motion who also supplies the names of the seconders.. Mathew indicated his intention way back in July when he named his seconders on the forum. I also believe he also followed the correct procedure in formally submitting the motion. I presume he would have checked with you as the seconder what exactly the wording on the motion should be and if you were happy with it. In other words the communication to Chess Scotland comes from the proposer and nowhere else. Are you now suggesting we now check every seconder for validity for every motion or are you just making a general enquiry. I am also surprised and shocked to find you were unaware of being put forwarded as a seconder for that motion

[JMcNicoll]

Indeed you would expect the proposer not only to make sure of their seconder(s) but to provide the evidence on demand if the named seconder was not attending. Whilst there are 2 seconders named I would question the stance that it's all right, we still have one.

Would not the position be that if 2 seconders are named both have to legal, as it were, for the motion to be competent.

Otherwise, taking it to extremes, a motion could proposed with many seconders in the hope at least one would be willing to do so.

With a fair few people taking no interest in the workings of Chess Scotland naming a few of them as seconders wouldn't be a problem as they would never find out.

[Alan Tate]

It was 4 months ago at the end of a tiring 9 round tournament. I can't remember exact details but one would expect some sort of follow-up, especially if there was new information available (unfortunately there was complete radio silence everywhere). If I had known people were going to resign over it then that would change things. With all these rules, regulations and meetings, then yes... I'd suggest seconders receive more than a couple of emails 4 months before.