04-03-2012, 04:32 PM
The 'actual selection criteria' as linked by Craig
• Was the player born in Scotland? No problem with this and doubt if anyone else really has either!? As David Congalton points out, some things are universally considered 'birthrights'.
• Were either or both of the player’s parents born in Scotland? I still think this requires a residency 'addition'. For example, someone who emigrated to Australia 40 years ago, had kids and somehow those children are 'Scottish' without ever having been here seems a bit far-fetched really.
• If the player is 18 or more years old, has he/she been permanently resident in Scotland for at least two years (if a junior, that is under 18, the equivalent time is one year)? I think it should be longer. I've worked in other countries for longer than that and personally wouldn't expect to be eligible for a national team on the basis of 2 years residency.
• Has the player been previously accepted as qualifying for Scottish representation? Does this rule mean that, for example, Jacob Aagaard could represent Scotland again in the future if he changed his mind? I can't say I was overly impressed by the way that worked last time, although I fully accept that he contributed a LOT to Scottish chess at the time. (and perhaps continues to?!)
If there are going to be changes made, I think it should reflect the 'level' of Scottishness!? The more remote or tenuous the link to being Scottish, the longer any residency clause should become.
Anyway, if it is a simple for or against the change, then I'm definitely against
• Was the player born in Scotland? No problem with this and doubt if anyone else really has either!? As David Congalton points out, some things are universally considered 'birthrights'.
• Were either or both of the player’s parents born in Scotland? I still think this requires a residency 'addition'. For example, someone who emigrated to Australia 40 years ago, had kids and somehow those children are 'Scottish' without ever having been here seems a bit far-fetched really.
• If the player is 18 or more years old, has he/she been permanently resident in Scotland for at least two years (if a junior, that is under 18, the equivalent time is one year)? I think it should be longer. I've worked in other countries for longer than that and personally wouldn't expect to be eligible for a national team on the basis of 2 years residency.
• Has the player been previously accepted as qualifying for Scottish representation? Does this rule mean that, for example, Jacob Aagaard could represent Scotland again in the future if he changed his mind? I can't say I was overly impressed by the way that worked last time, although I fully accept that he contributed a LOT to Scottish chess at the time. (and perhaps continues to?!)
If there are going to be changes made, I think it should reflect the 'level' of Scottishness!? The more remote or tenuous the link to being Scottish, the longer any residency clause should become.
Anyway, if it is a simple for or against the change, then I'm definitely against