01-04-2022, 10:07 AM
Hi Walter,
We seem to be at cross purposes.
Let's ignore Matt Turner's situation for the moment.
I agree that SCO should be enough. That is what I (and Douglas at the AGM) have been saying. Unfortunately, although that was what the Muir motion intended, it is not (using legalese) what the motion actually said.
If the Muir motion had been accepted verbatim you could easily have had Andrew Greet or Jacob Aagaard winning the title but anyone with their FIDE FIN starting 24 challenging it.
At best the Muir motion was ambiguous. My view is that it was wrong. There is a difference here in using Scotland code and SCO code. The Scotland code is 24. Talking of SCO code is wrong because, strictly speaking, SCO is not a code but a designation. However, everyone knows what SCO code means. Had Andy's motion said 'SCO code' his motion would have been wrong but not open to challenge through ambiguity.
I had been told also that because SCO had been accepted the rest of the qualification requirements to win the Scottish Championship had been made redundant as they are built into the requirements to gain SCO accreditation.
One of born, parent or residency is necessary to be registered as SCO, therefore if you are SCO then you have satisfied one of born, parent or residency. There is no need to have all 4 conditions to win the Scottish Championship when the first three are subsumed into being SCO.
I hope that is fairly straightforward.
Now returning to Matt.
If it is accepted that simply stating you have to be SCO to win the 'Scottish' covers everyone then we have potentially one person as an exception, Matt Turner. I think we would have great difficulty defending a discrimination case if we have ONLY one person who is SCO but not entitled to win the Scottish.
Clearly there is a strong argument that Matt should not have been allowed to change. But he was. To impose a regulation which discriminates against HIM ONLY could easily be illegal.
I am definitely leaving it there.
We seem to be at cross purposes.
Let's ignore Matt Turner's situation for the moment.
I agree that SCO should be enough. That is what I (and Douglas at the AGM) have been saying. Unfortunately, although that was what the Muir motion intended, it is not (using legalese) what the motion actually said.
If the Muir motion had been accepted verbatim you could easily have had Andrew Greet or Jacob Aagaard winning the title but anyone with their FIDE FIN starting 24 challenging it.
At best the Muir motion was ambiguous. My view is that it was wrong. There is a difference here in using Scotland code and SCO code. The Scotland code is 24. Talking of SCO code is wrong because, strictly speaking, SCO is not a code but a designation. However, everyone knows what SCO code means. Had Andy's motion said 'SCO code' his motion would have been wrong but not open to challenge through ambiguity.
I had been told also that because SCO had been accepted the rest of the qualification requirements to win the Scottish Championship had been made redundant as they are built into the requirements to gain SCO accreditation.
One of born, parent or residency is necessary to be registered as SCO, therefore if you are SCO then you have satisfied one of born, parent or residency. There is no need to have all 4 conditions to win the Scottish Championship when the first three are subsumed into being SCO.
I hope that is fairly straightforward.
Now returning to Matt.
If it is accepted that simply stating you have to be SCO to win the 'Scottish' covers everyone then we have potentially one person as an exception, Matt Turner. I think we would have great difficulty defending a discrimination case if we have ONLY one person who is SCO but not entitled to win the Scottish.
Clearly there is a strong argument that Matt should not have been allowed to change. But he was. To impose a regulation which discriminates against HIM ONLY could easily be illegal.
I am definitely leaving it there.