18-08-2012, 12:16 PM
I knew there was a reason why I should never have 'agreed' with Andy M. in the first place! Where to start? Well, here perhaps....
It is not 'racist'. If anything it is 'nationalistic' (a different entity altogether) but I refuse to hitch my wagon to anyone whose sentiments cross a certain line. Having fought against racism and the extreme BNP/EDL/SDL type of nationalism all my life, I don't want to be associated with anything or anyone whose purpose is not clearly against this.
I understand Craig P.'s view that we may be ahead of many countries with the inclusivity of our current eligibiltiy criteria and that he thinks this is a good thing - perhaps it is although I'm not convinced this outweighs other arguments. I also have a lot of time for Alan T's idea that certain individuals (Jacob is the prime example) should be allowed to compete for the title because of the services they have given to chess in Scotland. I imagine it would be very hard to qualify this in the rules/constitution/whatever.
As I stated previously however, I believe that as long as we have 'national' championships we should restrict the 'winner' of this to those who want or are able to represent Scotland on an international level. Everyone else (not SCO) can play (in the current setup) and others could be invited hors conceurs (should we return to an APA or small swiss). The Scottish champion should be given an automatic spot in the Olympic team and as far as I am aware this would require SCO affiliation with FIDE (if that's the correct phrase?!).
If the majority don't agree then that's fine - the discussion here has raised many important points and views (and some rather nit-picky but probably valid nonetheless!)
Andy M bringing the SNP into this argument is quite ridiculous and I think Derek Howie's point about politics/directors/motions etc is very important here.
Andy Burnett
Quote:Being the Scottish champion is about beating other Scots. It is racist I suppose...
It is not 'racist'. If anything it is 'nationalistic' (a different entity altogether) but I refuse to hitch my wagon to anyone whose sentiments cross a certain line. Having fought against racism and the extreme BNP/EDL/SDL type of nationalism all my life, I don't want to be associated with anything or anyone whose purpose is not clearly against this.
I understand Craig P.'s view that we may be ahead of many countries with the inclusivity of our current eligibiltiy criteria and that he thinks this is a good thing - perhaps it is although I'm not convinced this outweighs other arguments. I also have a lot of time for Alan T's idea that certain individuals (Jacob is the prime example) should be allowed to compete for the title because of the services they have given to chess in Scotland. I imagine it would be very hard to qualify this in the rules/constitution/whatever.
As I stated previously however, I believe that as long as we have 'national' championships we should restrict the 'winner' of this to those who want or are able to represent Scotland on an international level. Everyone else (not SCO) can play (in the current setup) and others could be invited hors conceurs (should we return to an APA or small swiss). The Scottish champion should be given an automatic spot in the Olympic team and as far as I am aware this would require SCO affiliation with FIDE (if that's the correct phrase?!).
If the majority don't agree then that's fine - the discussion here has raised many important points and views (and some rather nit-picky but probably valid nonetheless!)
Andy M bringing the SNP into this argument is quite ridiculous and I think Derek Howie's point about politics/directors/motions etc is very important here.
Andy Burnett
