08-07-2015, 12:33 AM
Like Alex, I've kind of just been watching this unfold. I'll chip in one tuppence-worth on the subject of junior votes: we don't let ten year-olds vote in national elections, for a number of reasons, possibly primarily that when you're young you tend to just agree with your parents (I know I did) and it's basically just giving them extra votes. I refuse to believe that the average ten-year-old member of Chess Scotland has any views at all on most issues at CS AGMs - I know for a fact that I'd have just asked my dad what he thought at that stage. He wouldn't have cared, which would have left me none the wiser, but there we go. There are exceptions, and there might be a case for lowering the age from sixteen, but on the whole I think restricting the franchise is a well-motivated idea.
(And the total number of juniors expressing their views here is I think zero - Clement hasn't been a junior for some years now, which is indeed a pretty chilling thought.)
That said, if the franchise ends up being amended, there is definitely a case for looking again at membership fee structures. If a parent of a chess-playing child or children feels strongly about CS issues, it would be great if some kind of adult+junior membership fee was available to enable them to contribute without the cost being too high. (I should also add that I think removing the right of non-members to post on the noticeboard would be a dreadful idea.)
One other point, and I have no idea what the status here is: I'd like to add my voice to those pointing out that there are a number of complex and multi-faceted amendments which have been raised, and it would be good if there was some way of considering them piecemeal, rather than necessarily rejecting or accepting them utterly.
(And the total number of juniors expressing their views here is I think zero - Clement hasn't been a junior for some years now, which is indeed a pretty chilling thought.)
That said, if the franchise ends up being amended, there is definitely a case for looking again at membership fee structures. If a parent of a chess-playing child or children feels strongly about CS issues, it would be great if some kind of adult+junior membership fee was available to enable them to contribute without the cost being too high. (I should also add that I think removing the right of non-members to post on the noticeboard would be a dreadful idea.)
One other point, and I have no idea what the status here is: I'd like to add my voice to those pointing out that there are a number of complex and multi-faceted amendments which have been raised, and it would be good if there was some way of considering them piecemeal, rather than necessarily rejecting or accepting them utterly.