30-03-2022, 11:35 PM
My eyes glaze over reading the comments/speculations about poorly documented past motions and what they meant, or were intended to mean. I'm not sure why any of that matters now when considering the current proposals?
Surely pretty much every federation will have eligibility criteria based on birth, parenthood and residence, with some tweaks on the exact calibration (length of residency, parent/grandparent etc).
Since many people will meet the criteria for more than 1 federation (including me - if only I was good enough at something for it to matter!), it is also perfectly reasonable and I assume pretty much universal that IN ADDITION the player concerned must have chosen Scotland (in our case) as his/her federation at FIDE.
I think this is what Proposal 1 proposes (putting aside whether it needs to be in the constitution or not), regardless of what happened in the past. So I support this proposal.
Unfortunately, MT does not meet any of the 3 criteria, therefore should not be eligible for representing Scotland or winning the championship. I don't think the fact that there was confusion in the past is a good enough reason to make an exception. So I don't support Proposal 2.
Unless I am missing something, approval of Proposal 1 with rejection of Proposal 2 would just retain the status quo for MT. He can remain registered with our federation at FIDE and, if he wishes to, he can continue what sounds like it has been an otherwise positive engagement with Scottish chess.
Surely pretty much every federation will have eligibility criteria based on birth, parenthood and residence, with some tweaks on the exact calibration (length of residency, parent/grandparent etc).
Since many people will meet the criteria for more than 1 federation (including me - if only I was good enough at something for it to matter!), it is also perfectly reasonable and I assume pretty much universal that IN ADDITION the player concerned must have chosen Scotland (in our case) as his/her federation at FIDE.
I think this is what Proposal 1 proposes (putting aside whether it needs to be in the constitution or not), regardless of what happened in the past. So I support this proposal.
Unfortunately, MT does not meet any of the 3 criteria, therefore should not be eligible for representing Scotland or winning the championship. I don't think the fact that there was confusion in the past is a good enough reason to make an exception. So I don't support Proposal 2.
Unless I am missing something, approval of Proposal 1 with rejection of Proposal 2 would just retain the status quo for MT. He can remain registered with our federation at FIDE and, if he wishes to, he can continue what sounds like it has been an otherwise positive engagement with Scottish chess.