05-04-2022, 01:18 PM
Excellent posts by Hamish! Also Alex very useful.
I've never bothered with this forum before until dipping into this topic a week or 2 back. I am surprised by the amount of mud being slung and by who is slinging a lot of it. That's the internet for you I suppose.
There has been very little discussion of the merits of the proposals themselves. Hamish and Alex are getting to this now. Here's my own tuppence worth.
Proposal 1 by accident or design hides a fundamental change to the residency criteria, which we are not being given the chance to vote on. It proposes that e.g. someone who isn't Scottish has lifelong eligibility to represent Scotland just because they lived here for a year as a kid. Is that a good idea? I think not. What is the benefit of that? The only case appearing to be made is it is simpler operationally. Sacrificing principles for operational expediency is not usually a good idea. But I don't see the operational issue anyway. Let's guess only about 30 people a year are seriously considered for selection to represent Scotland, the vast majority will have life-long eligibility through birth or parentage leaving only a handful who would require to confirm their residency if they wish to be considered eligible for selection that year. I am sure such people would be keen to co-operate, and if not too bad. What's the big problem?
Proposal 2 - I think 2 arguments have (sort of, obliquely) been put forward in support of this.
First - it's not fair that the past error leaves MT in the situation of not being eligible for Scotland, nor for any other federation because he is SCO registered. I agree it is unfortunate. Some of the advocates of this appear emotionally invested in this, possibly through feelings of embarrassment, guilt or sense of "fair play". But for me these are not good enough reasons to break our own rules, compounding 1 error with another, which may have unintended consequences in the future.
Secondly - CS might be open to a charge of discrimination against MT if he isn't granted full eligibility. That is nonsense. Apart for the points Hamish made earlier re SCO codes etc etc, discrimination is not illegal. Discrimination is rightly prevalent in all walks of life - team/club/society/professional body membership, school/uni/job applications, access to benefits/financial products etc etc. All have eligibility which discriminate between those eligible and those not. Discrimination is only illegal if it is done on an illegal basis, such as race, religion, gender or disability. In fact if proposal 2 was approved CS would have a much greater risk of facing a discrimination charge if it didn't also bend its rules in the future in the same way for someone who isn't a white male.
In short, my opinion is that a very poor job has been done of making a positive case for why these proposals should be approved.
I've never bothered with this forum before until dipping into this topic a week or 2 back. I am surprised by the amount of mud being slung and by who is slinging a lot of it. That's the internet for you I suppose.
There has been very little discussion of the merits of the proposals themselves. Hamish and Alex are getting to this now. Here's my own tuppence worth.
Proposal 1 by accident or design hides a fundamental change to the residency criteria, which we are not being given the chance to vote on. It proposes that e.g. someone who isn't Scottish has lifelong eligibility to represent Scotland just because they lived here for a year as a kid. Is that a good idea? I think not. What is the benefit of that? The only case appearing to be made is it is simpler operationally. Sacrificing principles for operational expediency is not usually a good idea. But I don't see the operational issue anyway. Let's guess only about 30 people a year are seriously considered for selection to represent Scotland, the vast majority will have life-long eligibility through birth or parentage leaving only a handful who would require to confirm their residency if they wish to be considered eligible for selection that year. I am sure such people would be keen to co-operate, and if not too bad. What's the big problem?
Proposal 2 - I think 2 arguments have (sort of, obliquely) been put forward in support of this.
First - it's not fair that the past error leaves MT in the situation of not being eligible for Scotland, nor for any other federation because he is SCO registered. I agree it is unfortunate. Some of the advocates of this appear emotionally invested in this, possibly through feelings of embarrassment, guilt or sense of "fair play". But for me these are not good enough reasons to break our own rules, compounding 1 error with another, which may have unintended consequences in the future.
Secondly - CS might be open to a charge of discrimination against MT if he isn't granted full eligibility. That is nonsense. Apart for the points Hamish made earlier re SCO codes etc etc, discrimination is not illegal. Discrimination is rightly prevalent in all walks of life - team/club/society/professional body membership, school/uni/job applications, access to benefits/financial products etc etc. All have eligibility which discriminate between those eligible and those not. Discrimination is only illegal if it is done on an illegal basis, such as race, religion, gender or disability. In fact if proposal 2 was approved CS would have a much greater risk of facing a discrimination charge if it didn't also bend its rules in the future in the same way for someone who isn't a white male.
In short, my opinion is that a very poor job has been done of making a positive case for why these proposals should be approved.