10-07-2015, 06:03 PM
I thougt it might be worth adding to the eligibility discussion in the light of clarifications that have emerged over the duration.
The eligibility proposal (Section 16) has caused confusion and concern as despite mentioning selection criteria, the wording implies that having a SCO code appears to override them.
In addition, the past hasty allocation of SCO codes to some new 'non-Scottish' or foreign, temporarily resident players to facilitate the grading of FIDE rated events has sparked further concern that the new proposals could potentially allow a returning strong player with an old SCO code that was allocated in this way to be eligible for international selection.
There have been reassurances that this wouldn’t happen and that there is no issue here because CS will use the criteria on residency and ‘bloodline’ (parent or grandparent) in order to allocate the SCO code.
Fair enough, this does make some sense - but it seems to me that several concerns have survived the explanations. The first is the hinted-at eligibility criteria were not determined by the membership or a consultation process. The second. is that the assurance that CS will use the implied criteria on residency and ‘bloodline’ in order to allocate the SCO code does not actually appear in the CWP proposal, which is after all a Constitution. This absence is one reason for the lively discussion. It’s not so much that CS could or would want to make eligible just anybody - rather that the selection criteria will not be set by the membership, as is often claimed.
The third concern stems from the fact that this blurriness at the setting-in-stone stage is apparently deliberate - various CS officials have indicated that CS wants to have flexibility and control of the SCO code. In other words, it wants not to be bound by whatever criteria have been suggested – eg (to quote what has been said) to avoid ‘disadvantage’, or because some players who have had qualified so far on residency have ‘done Scotland proud’.
Finally, it does not seem that existing SCO codes held that don't meet any new eligibilty criteria will be re-evaluated, which could compromise the new criteria if not set independently.
This suggests that the view held by CS officials on the tradeoff between what constitutes ‘success’ and ‘Scottishness’ may be at odds with its (unpolled) rank and file. Also from the democratic point of view, the ‘straight choice’ the membership were supposed to be offered is not evident. For example, if members specifically want to either have, or to not have, a ‘grandparent rule’ (or particular residency parameters) to determine eligibility, how do they bring this about?
The eligibility proposal (Section 16) has caused confusion and concern as despite mentioning selection criteria, the wording implies that having a SCO code appears to override them.
In addition, the past hasty allocation of SCO codes to some new 'non-Scottish' or foreign, temporarily resident players to facilitate the grading of FIDE rated events has sparked further concern that the new proposals could potentially allow a returning strong player with an old SCO code that was allocated in this way to be eligible for international selection.
There have been reassurances that this wouldn’t happen and that there is no issue here because CS will use the criteria on residency and ‘bloodline’ (parent or grandparent) in order to allocate the SCO code.
Fair enough, this does make some sense - but it seems to me that several concerns have survived the explanations. The first is the hinted-at eligibility criteria were not determined by the membership or a consultation process. The second. is that the assurance that CS will use the implied criteria on residency and ‘bloodline’ in order to allocate the SCO code does not actually appear in the CWP proposal, which is after all a Constitution. This absence is one reason for the lively discussion. It’s not so much that CS could or would want to make eligible just anybody - rather that the selection criteria will not be set by the membership, as is often claimed.
The third concern stems from the fact that this blurriness at the setting-in-stone stage is apparently deliberate - various CS officials have indicated that CS wants to have flexibility and control of the SCO code. In other words, it wants not to be bound by whatever criteria have been suggested – eg (to quote what has been said) to avoid ‘disadvantage’, or because some players who have had qualified so far on residency have ‘done Scotland proud’.
Finally, it does not seem that existing SCO codes held that don't meet any new eligibilty criteria will be re-evaluated, which could compromise the new criteria if not set independently.
This suggests that the view held by CS officials on the tradeoff between what constitutes ‘success’ and ‘Scottishness’ may be at odds with its (unpolled) rank and file. Also from the democratic point of view, the ‘straight choice’ the membership were supposed to be offered is not evident. For example, if members specifically want to either have, or to not have, a ‘grandparent rule’ (or particular residency parameters) to determine eligibility, how do they bring this about?