30-03-2022, 07:29 PM
(30-03-2022, 03:09 PM)KMcGeoch Wrote: 3. From what I can understand under the current selection criteria Matt Turner would be theoretically eligible to play for Scotland. The only reason he hasn't is section 9 of "Operating Procedure Selection Criteria" that basically allows the selectors to make alterations at their discretion.
4. Any rules that require exceptions are usually badly drafted. I'm assuming it was intended to make it a Scotland Fide affiliation and then someone brought up Matthew Turner and that led to second motion. I don't know exact details but if AGM where he was granted SCO designation was unconditional then he can play as he's been grandfathered in and if it was conditional then those conditions in the earlier AGM vote would still apply.
3 depends on this 2016 motion that I have referred to quite a few times. My understanding is he is not currently eligible. Alex has recollections that suggest otherwise but there is no definitive post-amendment wording that has been written down that would back this up.
The 2016 minutes, approved at the 2017 AGM (quoted earlier by Alex and again by me below) describe the amendment as "minor" and the only mentioned change was replacing SCO code with country code.
"Chess Scotland Champion must be SCO registered. Grey areas over who is Scottish and who isn’t. Discussion on wording of proposal. IE discussion on whether this is to do with number of Country code. Minor amendment – DB suggests change to federation designation instead of Country Code. AM agrees to amendment. amendment passed.
Vote on proposal. 16 for. 14 against. Motion passed."
The first four sentences are clearly what was discussed, and the fifth describes the minor amendment - replacing federation designation (the two or three digits at the start of the fide number, 24 for Scotland for example) with the country code (SCO, ENG).
As for 4, again that would depend on the 2016 motion, but in any case there is no grandfather clause in these rules at present, and given the issues we are having determining official versions of pivotal past rulings I don't think we would want one!
"Having said all that I'm not too sure how I should vote as it's hard to judge pros and cons of both motions. It seems to affect a very small amount of people so I'd probably just default to following CS board recommendations. That's assuming I can find voting links that I haven't located..."
This is about who represents Scotland? Aren't millions of people impacted (even if they don't know it
)?