Alex: "The amended motion that I saw indicated that anyone listed as SCO was entitled to win the championship. THe Working Party appears to have reached the same conclusion but does Matt's previous 'status' continue to make him an exception?"
I can understand Hamish's incredulity.
It would be astonishing if a condition that was added as an additional *necessity* was construed as being *sufficient*.
It should be clear that a condition which was clearly aimed at RESTRICTING eligibility can not somehow EXPAND eligibility.
I don't think you can cite the EWP as being in support of the bad LOGIC. Those in CS favouring expansion of eligibility criteria, whether by conferring eligibility from temporary residence or in the special case of Matthew, have been saying 'SCO code guarantees eligiblity', or full rights, since before 2016.
That doesn't make it true. 'SCO gives eligibility' was tested in the 2015 constitutonal proposal brought to the EGM, and failed.
I can understand Hamish's incredulity.
It would be astonishing if a condition that was added as an additional *necessity* was construed as being *sufficient*.
It should be clear that a condition which was clearly aimed at RESTRICTING eligibility can not somehow EXPAND eligibility.
I don't think you can cite the EWP as being in support of the bad LOGIC. Those in CS favouring expansion of eligibility criteria, whether by conferring eligibility from temporary residence or in the special case of Matthew, have been saying 'SCO code guarantees eligiblity', or full rights, since before 2016.
That doesn't make it true. 'SCO gives eligibility' was tested in the 2015 constitutonal proposal brought to the EGM, and failed.