Eligibility Votes - March 2022

[WBuchanan]

There seems to be three main questions here.  I think we should be trying to focus on these.
a) Should qualification for being Scottish be in the Constitution or just a Rule?
b) Should those with temporary residence be allowed to be considered Scottish?
c) Should Matt Turner have full Scottish status.

a) I think that this is important enough to be a constitutional matter.  If it had been in the constitution then there should have been no way Matt should have been accepted.  (I don't think he should have been anyway.)
b) The difficulty here is in defining temporary residence and considering the effects.  Here is a hypothetical situation based on a real life example.  Z arrives in  Scotland aged 6 months.  He remains in Scotland until 17.  I think everyone would be happy for that person to be registered as SCO.  However, he (or she) now goes to University in England.  Should he still be SCO or should he be forced to change?  Probably to soon to decide.  He graduates and gets a job in England.  At what point would he stop being regarded as Scottish?  Remember for titled players it can be an expensive process to change federations for titled players.  In addition, who keeps these records?
Personally I would find it difficult to accept someone arriving in Scotland to attend University or on a short term work contract as SCO.  But I would also find it difficult to draw up watertight rules.  Eg adult arrives on rolling contract, no former federation. It is not unreasonable to say they cannot be SCO.  But is it right to say they cannot become SCO when we accept someone on a full time contract after 24 months even if the leave after 25 months.
c) I believe Matt Turner should not have been accepted as SCO.  However an AGM accepted him.  Is it fair to now cast him adrift?  I do not believe so.  Like many errors, once they are made you need to learn to live with them.  Where the second motion is not satisfactory in my opinion is that it should include details of the compensation required to Matt to overturn his SCO status, a not insignificant amount for a GM.  It should also state that Chess Scotland will not require compensation from the receiving federation.

So my opinion
a) Yes, it minimises the risk of a repeat of this fiasco
b) In theory yes but too difficult to administer in practice therefore NO.
c) We accept him as a full member.  Given the history, it is unfair to do otherwise.

--------------------------------------------------------------
The Alex questions
 
a) I would agree in principle - but this fiasco was not caused by MT not being eligible, and can be avoided by what Willie called good governance. Rules in place, whatever they are; checking the current rules. Everything not left to Alex Championship Director, and a modicum of oversight. Etc.

But nothing should be in the constitution that has been sprung on, or otherwise concealed from, the membership. That is not a reasonable request to make - asking the members to tie their hands, while misleading them as to why.
 
c) The 2011 AGM did not accept MT's eligibility. It was an AOCB item - these should not have full status as items put to the membership in the proper way.
The status doesn't matter that much if there is no real body of opinion wanting to dispute Matthew having the code, as proposed to that AGM -i.e., in order to allow him to have a 'state' for FIDE tournaments.
But it matters if another body of opinion try to use it to build upon to push through something that wasn't put to that AGM. In that case, its status should be a stumbling block.
 
There is no sense in which MT would be 'cast adrift' should Motion 2 be rejected. Motion 2 states he will retain his SCO code, which is what he was given in the first place - and he himself says he has not asked for eligibility.

What Alex is talking about - Matthew changing federations himself - would apply to any GM changing federations.
I realize it's tempting to couch this relative to the viewpoint of Matthew being a Scottish representative and then that being denied, but that isn't the correct baseline.
 
Having said that, while I don't see any compensation is owed to MT unless his SCO code was taken from him (I wouldn't want that), certain expectations have been created, even going by what was said publicly in meetings. He has served Scotland in ways other than residency.
Informal obligations of a goodwill nature could possibly be fulfilled, or raised. Perhaps Alex is raising a delicate subject - I suggest any formal obligations would need to be disclosed to the membership before that could be thrown in as part of the calculus of the eligibility vote. (That's the only reason I'm mentioning it)

Meanwhile in a correct universe, we can dicuss that Matthew is a strong GM (there aren't any weak ones, but you know what I mean) who would strengthen any team, and an asset in many respects; and that is to be weighed against the rights - and contributions - of our Scots wannabees and nearlies, who are strong players who have themselves contributed a lot to the Scottish chess scene over a long period, and whose eligibility rights are not disputed.