04-07-2015, 06:14 PM
I am trying to be helpful here…others have already hinted at some of the points below but I thought it might be useful to bring these together.
“A player could be accepted by selectors as eligible on any basis whatsoever. “
Not true. The selectors can only select from those with a ‘SCO’ designation. And no-one will be given that designation by Chess Scotland without satisfying the qualifying criteria. What we are really debating is not only what those criteria should be, and whether they should be ‘enshrined’ in the constitution, requiring a change to the constitution if it ever needs to be amended for whatever reason. Those are both issues which can be validly debated.
By way of clarification the rules as drafted apply not just to being ‘Scottish Champion’ but to any present and future National Individual Title including those which are gender or age-related. When we are talking about representing Scotland in international competition, this applies not only to the Olympiad team but also many other gender and age-related competitions too, both team and individual.
For this and other reasons I would be strongly opposed to having a 5-year residence qualification as suggested. Here are a couple of scenarios (I am sure others could occur):
1. The child of a family who are legal immigrants is playing in Scotland and is therefore assigned a ‘SCO’ designation, However he is unable to be selected to represent Scotland in Glorney/Faber Cup or any other International, European and World Events. By the time he qualifies to play, he may no longer be a Junior.
2. FIDE in their wisdom decide to resurrect the ‘Student Olympiad’ competition which used to occur on a regular basis. Scotland would not be able to choose any representatives who were born outside Scotland. That would ‘take out’ a fair proportion of the potential team.
“I expect that many CS members would prefer to be at the 'disadvantage' of not having non-Scottish players in the team.”
What do you mean by ‘Non-Scottish’ ?. Many players who have a ‘SCO’ designation but were not born in Scotland have represented Scotland in some capacity or other (Open, Womens, Junior and Senior competitions of various kinds). Most of those qualified to obtain the ‘SCO’ designation because they live and play in Scotland. I can’t recall anyone with Scottish parents or grandparents who actually transferred federations and then played for Scotland. Does anyone believe there is going to be a tsunami of those wishing to do so now? And that selectors, would be willing to select them?
“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? “
No—as Dougie has explained, the selectors don’t decide the eligibility issue. The question of ‘Scottishness’ is currently determined by the procedures in place for assigning the ‘SCO’ designation. That has nothing to do with the selectors, who can only choose from those who are eligible, and furthermore may choose not to select anyone (for whatever reason) whose selection would not be in the best interests of Chess Scotland.
There is a corollary to this. Anyone with a ‘SCO’ designation cannot represent any other country in most, if not all, international competitions. So if they cannot play for Scotland, they are effectively in ‘limbo’ until that situation is resolved. That is an anomaly which we wished to remove, considering that there were sufficient safeguards already in place, both in the procedures for assigning ‘SCO’ and trusting that the selectors, who should be best placed to know, would make the right choices in any dubious case.
On the ‘Grandparent’ issue, Walter, if you don’t believe me regarding the ‘leanings’ of those on the CWP then that is your prerogative. But I could show you correspondence which would disprove your fears and I hope you will accept my word on that. Had we not put it in there might have been no debate at all and we might have been criticised for dodging the issue. It’s was a no-win situation for us.
I would be happy for any amendment such as the one you have outlined to be put to the membership. But the implications of any wording need to be considered very carefully, particularly if they are to be ‘set in stone’ for years to come and not kept separate as part of the 'operating procedures' for the officials concerned.
“A player could be accepted by selectors as eligible on any basis whatsoever. “
Not true. The selectors can only select from those with a ‘SCO’ designation. And no-one will be given that designation by Chess Scotland without satisfying the qualifying criteria. What we are really debating is not only what those criteria should be, and whether they should be ‘enshrined’ in the constitution, requiring a change to the constitution if it ever needs to be amended for whatever reason. Those are both issues which can be validly debated.
By way of clarification the rules as drafted apply not just to being ‘Scottish Champion’ but to any present and future National Individual Title including those which are gender or age-related. When we are talking about representing Scotland in international competition, this applies not only to the Olympiad team but also many other gender and age-related competitions too, both team and individual.
For this and other reasons I would be strongly opposed to having a 5-year residence qualification as suggested. Here are a couple of scenarios (I am sure others could occur):
1. The child of a family who are legal immigrants is playing in Scotland and is therefore assigned a ‘SCO’ designation, However he is unable to be selected to represent Scotland in Glorney/Faber Cup or any other International, European and World Events. By the time he qualifies to play, he may no longer be a Junior.
2. FIDE in their wisdom decide to resurrect the ‘Student Olympiad’ competition which used to occur on a regular basis. Scotland would not be able to choose any representatives who were born outside Scotland. That would ‘take out’ a fair proportion of the potential team.
“I expect that many CS members would prefer to be at the 'disadvantage' of not having non-Scottish players in the team.”
What do you mean by ‘Non-Scottish’ ?. Many players who have a ‘SCO’ designation but were not born in Scotland have represented Scotland in some capacity or other (Open, Womens, Junior and Senior competitions of various kinds). Most of those qualified to obtain the ‘SCO’ designation because they live and play in Scotland. I can’t recall anyone with Scottish parents or grandparents who actually transferred federations and then played for Scotland. Does anyone believe there is going to be a tsunami of those wishing to do so now? And that selectors, would be willing to select them?
“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? “
No—as Dougie has explained, the selectors don’t decide the eligibility issue. The question of ‘Scottishness’ is currently determined by the procedures in place for assigning the ‘SCO’ designation. That has nothing to do with the selectors, who can only choose from those who are eligible, and furthermore may choose not to select anyone (for whatever reason) whose selection would not be in the best interests of Chess Scotland.
There is a corollary to this. Anyone with a ‘SCO’ designation cannot represent any other country in most, if not all, international competitions. So if they cannot play for Scotland, they are effectively in ‘limbo’ until that situation is resolved. That is an anomaly which we wished to remove, considering that there were sufficient safeguards already in place, both in the procedures for assigning ‘SCO’ and trusting that the selectors, who should be best placed to know, would make the right choices in any dubious case.
On the ‘Grandparent’ issue, Walter, if you don’t believe me regarding the ‘leanings’ of those on the CWP then that is your prerogative. But I could show you correspondence which would disprove your fears and I hope you will accept my word on that. Had we not put it in there might have been no debate at all and we might have been criticised for dodging the issue. It’s was a no-win situation for us.
I would be happy for any amendment such as the one you have outlined to be put to the membership. But the implications of any wording need to be considered very carefully, particularly if they are to be ‘set in stone’ for years to come and not kept separate as part of the 'operating procedures' for the officials concerned.