Posts: 1,000
Threads: 94
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
2
The agenda for the SGM is as follows:
2. That eligibility requirements for Scottish representation be amended to bring it in line with most sports in the UK, such that “Were either or both of the player’s parents born in Scotland?” is changed to “Were any of the player’s parents or grandparents born in Scotland?”
What way should I vote ?
Posts: 400
Threads: 9
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
How you vote is entirely your call Andy but I will vote against it, in its current form.
I think we are on the edge of a precipice. The watering down of these rules is a very slippery slope. Hypothetically this rule would allow:
A player who has spent their whole life in say, Switzerland, their parents are from Switzerland, one of their grandparents are from Switzerland and their other grandparent was born in Scotland (before moving to Switzerland at age 2) could represent Scotland.
For me, this isn’t right! If you want to play chess for Scotland you should live in Scotland and preferably play some chess in Scotland as well.
I am also curious as to what evidence someone would have to stump up to prove their grandparent was born in Scotland. Is it hearsay or word of mouth? I have seen no detail on having documents verified etc. for proof and until these stipulations are set and the detail is provided this should be kicked into touch.
I am much more in favour of a residency clause rather than “my grandparent was born in Scotland 80 years ago, I don't live in Scotland but I want to play chess for Scotland” I am not comfortable with this at all.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Posts: 462
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
I have given this some thought since last time the topic came up and I agree with David. If you want to play for a country you should definitely live there*. The Fide rules are already somewhat ridiculous for changing federation and make it far too easy. In an international event where you are representing your country you should at the very least live there*, and preferably have strong ties to that country.
Edit: *or have been born there
Posts: 208
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
1
Surely any rule for one FIDE member state (and the odd few non-state FIDE members like the UK home countries) should be the same?
As there is no universal FIDE "grandparent" rule, why should Scotland want to have one, thereby creating a non-level playing field?
Is the representative FIDE rule still: by "birth" in a member FIDE country (state or non-state member) OR 3 year residence in that member country?
If so, why change it? ... indeed it seems unlikely that any member state / non-state should or perhaps even legally can depart from that in any way UNLESS with the explicit and prior permission of FIDE.
Before any change, if any, is envisaged, CS should surely discuss the grounds fully with FIDE and clarify that CS has the powers within FIDE rules to go ahead. That strikes me as the only principled course.
If CS tries to adopt representative criteria that are different (and in the case of the "grandparent" rule apparently privileged), won't it run the risk of irritating FIDE and / or other FIDE members (or worse, inviting reprisals, not excluding votes to end separate membership of the UK non-state members by a small number of FIDE state members who, in the past, have long wished to find an excuse to end what they see as an unwarranted UK privilege)?
Puzzled and a little concerned ... happy to be corrected if I've got any facts wrong, of course!
I think, though I'd have to check, that FIDE's "birth" criterion may have been slackly drafted in terms of "citizenship", which of course has no meaning to FIDE's non-state members. But it's fairly clear that Scotland shouldn't attempt to take advantage of slack drafting just because we have no Scottish "citizens". Indeed FIDE might be happy to have their drafting anomaly corrected ... I'm sure "birth" is implied by their use of "citizenship", including in particular for its non-state members.
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
I can feel a brammer of a debate coming on. Now I am trying to watch my words carefully here because of the politically daft world we now all share but I would like to look at this wearing my junior selector cap. Many of the top juniors that play regularly in Scottish leagues and congresses have an international background. They and their parents support (and fund!) Scottish junior International chess. Many of them have come to our great country through ambition and desire to progress their careers. We should be embracing this ambition and welcoming their sacrifices and desire for success. We cant be seen to be following the dinosaur former Yorkshire cricket selection policy but need to open our hearts and minds to a changing world. If we are seen to be a "closed shop" as far as juniors are concerned what chance do we have of progressing as a chess nation?
Robin.
Posts: 278
Threads: 19
Joined: Aug 2011
Robin, the proposed rule change does not impact the current residency rules (one year for kids, 2 years for adults) and should therefore not affect any kids who live in and play their chess in Scotland.
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
Derek,
Of course you are totally correct but I don't want the debate to move in this direction.
Robin,
Posts: 400
Threads: 9
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
Robin - this proposal doesn't affect juniors directly as Derek stated. It is important we don't confuse the issues as that is when proposals like this get passed for the wrong reasons.
Back to the topic -
Would we be in breach of FIDE rules by implementing this proposal?
Why change the status quo?
In light of the old topic revived is one person bigger than chess in Scotland?
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Posts: 289
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2011
Agree entirely with David and Alan. It is currently easy for people who live in Scotland to qualify within a short space of time to play for the country. I don't think anything needs changed. If you want to play for us, that's fine, but please come and live here. It's an okay place.
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
Personally I think we should trust the wisdom of the selectors.
That is the body of people appointed to everything into account and who should routinely consider the merits of every paid up member who satisfies all the qualification rules.
Changing the rules to an alternative acceptable version seems OK to me.
Personally I moved to Scotland in 2003. I was an economic migrant.
Had I been good enough to be playing another country at time would it have been correct for me to be forced to stop playing for them ?
