01-07-2015, 09:25 PM
Thanks Robin and Andy, now we all have everything 
From the ‘summary of changes’ (see Robin's post):
“Please also note that eligibility to be registered as SCO is the same as the eligibility for the title of Scottish Champion. Anyone who qualifies as 'SCO' has full rights in terms of title and international selection. This means that 'SCO' affiliation is a single-tier system”.
Also from ‘the changes’ - only one of the requirements for championship eligibility need be met…including a Scottish parent or grandparent.
Ergo, a Scottish grandparent provides eligibility according to the explanatory notes.
The constitution itself says differently, with none of the ‘Scottishness’ requirements referred to. ‘The changes’ is an explanatory document and could not override what the constitution says. A player could be accepted by selectors as eligible on any basis whatsoever. The ‘not insubstantial sum’ to pay FIDE that Alastair alludes to would be irrelevant if (s)he could afford it.
Thanks Alastair for your response.
To the question “so the only requirements for the latter (i.e. eligibility for international selection) are the ones set by FIDE?” you say
“Yes, to a certain extent that is true. Doing otherwise would put us at a disadvantage as compared with other nations”.
I expect that many CS members would prefer to be at the 'disadvatage' of not having non-Scottish players in the team.
You also explain
“Since Chess Scotland effectively controls who is eligible to be registered as ‘SCO’ then the operating procedures for that process can effectively define who is eligible and who isn't. The fine detail of these can be debated (and already has!) but putting these 'guidelines' in the constitution would create inflexibility, meaning a change to the constitution every time we wished to alter them. The correct place for them is in the 'operating procedures' for whoever applies for registrations (currently the grading officer).”
Isn’t this the same as saying the selectors will decide the Scottish eligibility issue for themselves?
Do the members want selectors to have the flexibility to decide on Scottishness? On such an important question, shouldn’t they be asked explicitly?
On which way the CWP is ‘minded’, you also say
“Nothing could be further from the truth. Can I refer you back to the original response which stated: “The current proposal is the 'grandparent' rule which fits with some other sports but not others. This was included to ensure that we would have a constructive debate on the issue to which all members could contribute. In fact the CWP would propose that the membership should also consider an alternative Section 16.1.1 with similar wording but with 'or grandparent' removed. Effectively this would then introduce a 'parent' rule in terms of future 'SCO' registration. So a straight choice vote for 'parentage' or 'grandparentage' to determine 'SCO' in the future.”
There are two differing versions in the constitution/explanation and many people didn’t realize the grandparent criterion was being voted on– surely this is not best way to ‘start a debate’ on such a simple question?
And the ‘straight choice’ didn’t make its way on to the latest version of the constitution that we are discussing. That the CWP has moved from a position of ‘wanting to start a debate’ on the choice to a position of not offering the choice at all does suggest a certain leaning.
But really it doesn’t matter which way the present officials are ‘minded’ (my word, I know!). Surely the question of the Scottish connection should be established by obtaining the explicit view of the members?
Cheers
From the ‘summary of changes’ (see Robin's post):
“Please also note that eligibility to be registered as SCO is the same as the eligibility for the title of Scottish Champion. Anyone who qualifies as 'SCO' has full rights in terms of title and international selection. This means that 'SCO' affiliation is a single-tier system”.
Also from ‘the changes’ - only one of the requirements for championship eligibility need be met…including a Scottish parent or grandparent.
Ergo, a Scottish grandparent provides eligibility according to the explanatory notes.
The constitution itself says differently, with none of the ‘Scottishness’ requirements referred to. ‘The changes’ is an explanatory document and could not override what the constitution says. A player could be accepted by selectors as eligible on any basis whatsoever. The ‘not insubstantial sum’ to pay FIDE that Alastair alludes to would be irrelevant if (s)he could afford it.
Thanks Alastair for your response.
To the question “so the only requirements for the latter (i.e. eligibility for international selection) are the ones set by FIDE?” you say
“Yes, to a certain extent that is true. Doing otherwise would put us at a disadvantage as compared with other nations”.
I expect that many CS members would prefer to be at the 'disadvatage' of not having non-Scottish players in the team.
You also explain
“Since Chess Scotland effectively controls who is eligible to be registered as ‘SCO’ then the operating procedures for that process can effectively define who is eligible and who isn't. The fine detail of these can be debated (and already has!) but putting these 'guidelines' in the constitution would create inflexibility, meaning a change to the constitution every time we wished to alter them. The correct place for them is in the 'operating procedures' for whoever applies for registrations (currently the grading officer).”
Isn’t this the same as saying the selectors will decide the Scottish eligibility issue for themselves?
Do the members want selectors to have the flexibility to decide on Scottishness? On such an important question, shouldn’t they be asked explicitly?
On which way the CWP is ‘minded’, you also say
“Nothing could be further from the truth. Can I refer you back to the original response which stated: “The current proposal is the 'grandparent' rule which fits with some other sports but not others. This was included to ensure that we would have a constructive debate on the issue to which all members could contribute. In fact the CWP would propose that the membership should also consider an alternative Section 16.1.1 with similar wording but with 'or grandparent' removed. Effectively this would then introduce a 'parent' rule in terms of future 'SCO' registration. So a straight choice vote for 'parentage' or 'grandparentage' to determine 'SCO' in the future.”
There are two differing versions in the constitution/explanation and many people didn’t realize the grandparent criterion was being voted on– surely this is not best way to ‘start a debate’ on such a simple question?
And the ‘straight choice’ didn’t make its way on to the latest version of the constitution that we are discussing. That the CWP has moved from a position of ‘wanting to start a debate’ on the choice to a position of not offering the choice at all does suggest a certain leaning.
But really it doesn’t matter which way the present officials are ‘minded’ (my word, I know!). Surely the question of the Scottish connection should be established by obtaining the explicit view of the members?
Cheers