New constitution

[Ianbrownlee]

Yep, you got it wrong again, birthright is an automatic and unchallenged right to be Scottish Champion. Fortunately you don't specifically say at what.

you noticed! Seriously there are more qualified and enlightened people on this matter which is why I prefer to leave those in the know to comment on it

[Matthew Turner]

Page 14. Any plans to help young players achieve title norms?

Without doubt there should be, but is this thread on the Constitution the right place?

A formal proposal put to the AGM to investigate and develop such a plan or strategy is one way of raising this matter in a formal way.

Jim,
I was trying to make a serious point in a humorous way. Without joining the notice board this is the only thread that you will see; Does it portray an organisation looking to develop Scottish Chess into the future? Perhaps if you join the noticeboard you will see a different picture? General Chess Chat no postings since June 28th, Announcements, nothing since April 30th and Games analysis nothing since 2013. I just wonder whether energies devoted to constitutional matters could be better used elsewhere.

[Gary McPheator]

Hi Walter,

I had only half read your proposal and hadn't realised you wish to introduce longer residency rules for representing Scotland before deciding to respond. My apologies! It does of course makes sense to seperate in such a scenario, although I am sure the same outcome could be achieved via the operating procedures.

You are quite correct in that the present wording of the constitution means you are eligible for both representing Scotland and competing for Scottish individual national championships if SCO. As Douglas has indicated, to be registered as SCO you have to meet the birth, parentage and residency rules. What is haphazard about this? If you are worried about a theoretical influx of overseas players requesting to change federation, surely something can be added about how Chess Scotland will deal with such a situation.

The statement from the CWP does seem to want privileges to go with registration as SCO with FIDE. Players will have aquired this easily by being born in Scotland, having a parent born in Scotland (potentially grandparent as well) or meeting the residency rules of the day. Players who do not meet these criteria can not be registered as SCO easily.

[Alastair White]

I am trying to be helpful here…others have already hinted at some of the points below but I thought it might be useful to bring these together.

“A player could be accepted by selectors as eligible on any basis whatsoever. “
Not true. The selectors can only select from those with a ‘SCO’ designation. And no-one will be given that designation by Chess Scotland without satisfying the qualifying criteria. What we are really debating is not only what those criteria should be, and whether they should be ‘enshrined’ in the constitution, requiring a change to the constitution if it ever needs to be amended for whatever reason. Those are both issues which can be validly debated.

By way of clarification the rules as drafted apply not just to being ‘Scottish Champion’ but to any present and future National Individual Title including those which are gender or age-related. When we are talking about representing Scotland in international competition, this applies not only to the Olympiad team but also many other gender and age-related competitions too, both team and individual.

For this and other reasons I would be strongly opposed to having a 5-year residence qualification as suggested. Here are a couple of scenarios (I am sure others could occur):
1. The child of a family who are legal immigrants is playing in Scotland and is therefore assigned a ‘SCO’ designation, However he is unable to be selected to represent Scotland in Glorney/Faber Cup or any other International, European and World Events. By the time he qualifies to play, he may no longer be a Junior.
2. FIDE in their wisdom decide to resurrect the ‘Student Olympiad’ competition which used to occur on a regular basis. Scotland would not be able to choose any representatives who were born outside Scotland. That would ‘take out’ a fair proportion of the potential team.

“I expect that many CS members would prefer to be at the 'disadvantage' of not having non-Scottish players in the team.”
What do you mean by ‘Non-Scottish’ ?. Many players who have a ‘SCO’ designation but were not born in Scotland have represented Scotland in some capacity or other (Open, Womens, Junior and Senior competitions of various kinds). Most of those qualified to obtain the ‘SCO’ designation because they live and play in Scotland. I can’t recall anyone with Scottish parents or grandparents who actually transferred federations and then played for Scotland. Does anyone believe there is going to be a tsunami of those wishing to do so now? And that selectors, would be willing to select them?

“Isn’t this the same as saying the selectors will decide the Scottish eligibility issue for themselves? Do the members want selectors to have the flexibility to decide on Scottishness? On such an important question, shouldn’t they be asked explicitly? “
No—as Dougie has explained, the selectors don’t decide the eligibility issue. The question of ‘Scottishness’ is currently determined by the procedures in place for assigning the ‘SCO’ designation. That has nothing to do with the selectors, who can only choose from those who are eligible, and furthermore may choose not to select anyone (for whatever reason) whose selection would not be in the best interests of Chess Scotland.

There is a corollary to this. Anyone with a ‘SCO’ designation cannot represent any other country in most, if not all, international competitions. So if they cannot play for Scotland, they are effectively in ‘limbo’ until that situation is resolved. That is an anomaly which we wished to remove, considering that there were sufficient safeguards already in place, both in the procedures for assigning ‘SCO’ and trusting that the selectors, who should be best placed to know, would make the right choices in any dubious case.

On the ‘Grandparent’ issue, Walter, if you don’t believe me regarding the ‘leanings’ of those on the CWP then that is your prerogative. But I could show you correspondence which would disprove your fears and I hope you will accept my word on that. Had we not put it in there might have been no debate at all and we might have been criticised for dodging the issue. It’s was a no-win situation for us.

I would be happy for any amendment such as the one you have outlined to be put to the membership. But the implications of any wording need to be considered very carefully, particularly if they are to be ‘set in stone’ for years to come and not kept separate as part of the 'operating procedures' for the officials concerned.

[WBuchanan]

Hi Walter,

I had only half read your proposal and hadn't realised you wish to introduce longer residency rules for representing Scotland before deciding to respond. My apologies! It does of course makes sense to seperate in such a scenario, although I am sure the same outcome could be achieved via the operating procedures.

You are quite correct in that the present wording of the constitution means you are eligible for both representing Scotland and competing for Scottish individual national championships if SCO. As Douglas has indicated, to be registered as SCO you have to meet the birth, parentage and residency rules. What is haphazard about this? If you are worried about a theoretical influx of overseas players requesting to change federation, surely something can be added about how Chess Scotland will deal with such a situation.

The statement from the CWP does seem to want privileges to go with registration as SCO with FIDE. Players will have aquired this easily by being born in Scotland, having a parent born in Scotland (potentially grandparent as well) or meeting the residency rules of the day. Players who do not meet these criteria can not be registered as SCO easily.

Hi gary. I'm posting from handheld device as away for weekend so apols in advance...

Its haphazard as Dougie noted these SCO codes are allocated as part of the process of Fide grading tournaments. I accept this might be dealt with. However the SCO code could be given to a foreign player if CS agrees, and it seems the power to grant this would flow from the proposed constitutional changes.

The main problem is that we are being asked to vote in the constitution that appears to specify residency and bloodline requirements, when in fact these are intended to be specified by future or present officials in SCO code or by future procedures.

Alastair says flexibilty is wanted. Many have already indicated that eligibility criteria require wider membership input. But the eligibility criteria that would go into the SCO code aren't on the table for discussion.

Cheers

[Derek Howie]

By way of clarification the rules as drafted apply not just to being ‘Scottish Champion’ but to any present and future National Individual Title including those which are gender or age-related.

Does this include the Primary Individual? The Scottish Girls Championship? Are you saying that kids would have to be registered with FIDE and members of CS before they can take part in these kids competitions?

When we are talking about representing Scotland in international competition, this applies not only to the Olympiad team but also many other gender and age-related competitions too, both team and individual.

So kids would need to be registered with FIDE before they could play at, say, the Liverpool Quadrangular?

[WBuchanan]

I am trying to be helpful here…others have already hinted at some of the points below but I thought it might be useful to bring these together.

“A player could be accepted by selectors as eligible on any basis whatsoever. “
Not true. The selectors can only select from those with a ‘SCO’ designation. And no-one will be given that designation by Chess Scotland without satisfying the qualifying criteria. What we are really debating is not only what those criteria should be, and whether they should be ‘enshrined’ in the constitution, requiring a change to the constitution if it ever needs to be amended for whatever reason. Those are both issues which can be validly debated.

By way of clarification the rules as drafted apply not just to being ‘Scottish Champion’ but to any present and future National Individual Title including those which are gender or age-related. When we are talking about representing Scotland in international competition, this applies not only to the Olympiad team but also many other gender and age-related competitions too, both team and individual.

For this and other reasons I would be strongly opposed to having a 5-year residence qualification as suggested. Here are a couple of scenarios (I am sure others could occur):
1. The child of a family who are legal immigrants is playing in Scotland and is therefore assigned a ‘SCO’ designation, However he is unable to be selected to represent Scotland in Glorney/Faber Cup or any other International, European and World Events. By the time he qualifies to play, he may no longer be a Junior.
2. FIDE in their wisdom decide to resurrect the ‘Student Olympiad’ competition which used to occur on a regular basis. Scotland would not be able to choose any representatives who were born outside Scotland. That would ‘take out’ a fair proportion of the potential team.

“I expect that many CS members would prefer to be at the 'disadvantage' of not having non-Scottish players in the team.”
What do you mean by ‘Non-Scottish’ ?. Many players who have a ‘SCO’ designation but were not born in Scotland have represented Scotland in some capacity or other (Open, Womens, Junior and Senior competitions of various kinds). Most of those qualified to obtain the ‘SCO’ designation because they live and play in
Scotland. I can’t recall anyone with Scottish parents or grandparents who actually transferred federations and then played for Scotland. Does anyone believe there is going to be a tsunami of those wishing to do so now? And that selectors, would be willing to select them?

Hi again Alastair

Your first para says Not True but selectors decide whether to select someone according to criteria decided on by CS. Any basis that CS wants to specify, as long as its been specified in the SCO code.

Yes we are debating eligibility but not in a context in which an amendment to the criteria can readily be specified as that would have to be in the SCO code the details of which are to be specified once the constitution has been voted in. Would you agree that this makes democracy harder on the issue of the eligibility criteria?

On my five year residency suggestion I thought we had that already, or have had it recently..so it can't be that ridiculous surely. Yes obviously for juniors it would need to be amended, but it's easily done eg the current proposal has a one year residency and nobody has argued against that. On student Olympiads, this is a shorter kind of residency and nobody has objected to CS having the flexibility to deal with that so I'm not sure why that shoulld be an argument against having a sensible residency threshold when such a threshold would clearly be relevant.

You can look for holes in my choice of words but by "non-Scottish" I only meant players who didn't meet the criteria for a Scottish connection, whatever was specified by the membership, not me. I was after all referring the the views of members. This was in answer to your response that CS wanted "flexibility" to avoid "disadvantage". And when did I say anything suggesting a tsunami? We are discussing the criteria for players in general whether one or a whole team. You cant ask for a certain power to be granted and simultaneously say it would never be used and also present objections as being based on exaggerated numbers.

I've limited facility, sorry... Will complete post shortly.
Cheers

[amuir]

In the past we have had block votes. Let's say 35 people are at sgm . Say 20 on cwp and 15 members. The vote for new constitution is 20-15.people on cwp have vested interest and must be barred from voting. That means howie, Bryson, Webster, white must abstain due to vested interest.buchanan,Burnett,Tate can vote.

[Jim Webster]

In the past we have had block votes. Let's say 35 people are at sgm . Say 20 on cwp and 15 members. The vote for new constitution is 20-15.people on cwp have vested interest and must be barred from voting. That means howie, Bryson, Webster, white must abstain due to vested interest.buchanan,Burnett,Tate can vote.

That is totally against the constitution.

Nowhere in the constitution are block votes even mentioned.

If I understand correctly what you are saying/intending is that people, any proposer/seconder for example, cannot vote on their own proposal because they have a vested interest in that proposal.

How democratic is that?

For the record - you also got the names of the CWP members wrong.

[robin moore]

Andy Muir,
Thank you for having that uncanny ability to make me laugh out loud every time you post.

I am off to work now and am afraid that there is still so much to discuss on this excellent thread but time is very tight.
I await with interest Alastair's response to Derek's post. On the junior front I am totally against removing voting rights for under 16's which deserves more discussion time than may be available.