Scotland V Basque Federation

[Derek Howie]

Robin, The Basque Federation does not have a website and they have offered to pay costs.

Have they offered to pay all costs or will part of it, eg flights, be coming out of your international budget? Are you just going by the ambiguous email posted earlier or did you establish exactly what it would cost before accepting?

Derek, I argue that we are staying out of politics by only playing chess. You could argue that sending teams to Olympiads in Russia, the Philippines, Norway and to Bilbao for the club cup are all political in some way, but then we would never play any international matches if we took that line.

It's hardly the same. You are being disingenuous trying to imply that sending a team to the Olympiad has the same political ramifications as sending a team to play a region in Spain, when the invitation has clearly been sent for political purposes.

I wonder if you would be in such a rush to accept the invitation if it had come from Galicia. Then again there were not any Galicia flags being waved at the "Yes" rallies prior to the referendum.

Chess Scotland should not allow itself to be used as a pawn in the internal politics of another country and the invitation should be politely refused.

[Patrick McGovern]

Derek can you point out the political content within the invitation please?

[Derek Howie]

Derek,

it was established at the agm in August that no directors had overspent their budget - including the year 2013-2014 for which accounts were soon to be published. Unless we have have information to the contrary we can only assume that the management board and finance director are continuing to comply with that policy.

I reckon it was an error for Andy Muir to post on this notice board pointing out the political connotations which might be picked up by a journalist. The response was predictable. However if there are good chess based reasons then it would be acceptable to send a team.

As has been said a few times before - and not just by me- Directors are appointed to direct. They account for themselves
At the agm in person.
On the website with their annual report.
In the CS accounts retrospectively for their budgetary control.
With the finance director in real time for any budgetary overspend.

Phil, I'm still surprised at your logic earlier that a CS director can't be doing a bad job if nobody else puts themselves forward to stand against them at the AGM. I'm sure there are a few directors who are happy to know that you feel this about their performance in their roles.

I'm sorry to hear that you feel that politics should not be considered when making decisions and that it's OK for directors to make decisions to promote their own political agendas. I disagree with that and I can think of a few examples that people would be in uproar about. Surely members have the right to raise questions when they feel that Directors are abusing their positions?

As for the financial side, it's disappointing that draft accounts have still not been made available to members. Has there even been a budget approved by Council for 2014-15? I can't see any mention of it on the main site.

I believe Directors should be accounting to Council on their budget, and as I'm listed as a Council member I have the right to raise questions when I feel that CS is committing itself to potentially unbudgeted expenditure.

[Derek Howie]

Derek can you point out the political content within the invitation please?

So you believe that Scotland were picked at random with no political agenda, and there can only be a political agenda if it's stated in black and white in an invitation?

[Patrick McGovern]

Sorry Derek, I just don't see it. However if you would like to explain to me why you see it I would be happy to listen.

[andyburnett]

Derek can you point out the political content within the invitation please?

So you believe that Scotland were picked at random with no political agenda, and there can only be a political agenda if it's stated in black and white in an invitation?

Just what is the political agenda Derek? Is it that the Basque Chess Federation wants to align itself with a country which has just voted NO to independence? Or to a country which almost (kind of almost) voted YES to independence? Or...?

[Phil Thomas]

Derek,
I kept that posting short in order to give it the advantage of brevity.

When I said that Andy Muir wasn’t doing that bad a job I meant in comparison to the rest of the organisation. Andy wrote a directors reports for the agm, Andy attended the agm and I know from information received verbally during the agm that he did not exceed his budget: He is willing to answer question on this notice board.

I can accept that the Basque chess federation may be looking to make political points. But I struggle to see how CS could suffer as a result.

It is not my intention to summarise all the agm proceedings here but briefly…….
The meeting was chaired by Steve Mannion senior. The question of the absent accounts for 2013 to 2014 arose. The finance director stated that lack of time has prevented them being ready for the agm. Steve Mannion appeared unhappy with the situation and went as far as suggesting that they be prepared asap and distributed to those who attended the agm. This idea was not formally adopted – but I don’t recall any dissenting voices from any members present.

All in all Andy Muir isn’t doing such a bad job (IMHO).

[Derek Howie]

Just what is the political agenda Derek? Is it that the Basque Chess Federation wants to align itself with a country which has just voted NO to independence? Or to a country which almost (kind of almost) voted YES to independence? Or...?

Let's pick a country that has a relatively high percentage in favour of independence? A country that was willing to give a referendum? A country that had very recently had worldwide coverage of the issue? Let's pick a country that would allow us to raise the independence issue or allow others to do so? A combination of all of these and more probably.

[Derek Howie]

I can accept that the Basque chess federation may be looking to make political points.

Glad I'm not the only one that can see that.

But I struggle to see how CS could suffer as a result.

I believe CS should remain apolitical. There's a difference between being one of a hundred countries that go to play in Russia, for example, and where Scotland's specific presence could be used both in Spain and domestically for political purposes.

Would we suffer? I couldn't say for sure, but it's possible that we may lose members. It's possible that the chess federation of Spain (and others such as Belgium) look on us unfavourably and politic against us as they would see us as a political organisation that attempts to represent regions as countries? All hypothetical, and it's not my main argument, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.

[Patrick McGovern]

So Derek, what is your main argument?