31-03-2022, 06:23 PM
We have certainly gone down some rabbit holes! I probably helped dig some...
The MT eligibility question is important but not the core issue. He clearly doesn't meet any reasonable set of eligibility criteria so the question is does the past confusion justify an exception for him. I think no, others may think yes. But at least it's a yes/no.
I don't really care who said what when in past meetings/votes. I also don't really have any interest in the mechanics/codes etc used to register players as Scottish with FIDE, which no doubt could change from time to time anyway. I think the level we should be discussing at, and the rules should be defined at, is registered as Scottish at FIDE (whatever the mechanics are).
The core issues are (a) what should the eligibility criteria be and (b) should they be embedded in the constitution.
(b) is the less important of the 2, and I guess I am ambivalent. The higher vote threshold to make changes could be a pro or a con in different circumstances in the future.
(a) the actual criteria should be the focus of discussion. I think WB made this point a while back, and more recent posts have raised some questions in my mind anyway.
e.g. "birth" - how defined and evidenced, if required? I am no expert but I assume an official birth certificate or adoption certificate showing the birth or adoption occurred in Scotland would suffice. I think Guardianship is a whole other thing - wards of court etc, and not relevant.
"parentage" - at first sight simple - your birth/adoption certificate shows who your parents are and then you just apply the same "birth" criteria as above to them, right? But what about divorce/step-children etc? Should "parentage" apply only to original birth/adoptive parents? That's before you get into surrogates etc...I guess this is where the rules need some leeway in interpretation as hard to cover all circumstances.
generally birth and parentage are permanent so should confer permanent eligibility
"residency" - this can be much more temporary so is it right that it confers permanent eligibility? I didn't realise until WB pointed it out that under Proposal 1 somebody could become permanently eligible for Scotland just because they lived here for a year as a kid when their parent came for a work placement, or because they themselves happened to do a degree at a Scottish Uni many years ago. That doesn't feel tight to me. I see the EWP had a lot of debate and split opinions on this themselves, and the argument for this seems to boil down to logistics/data protection etc. I'm not convinced by that - it is only relevant if somebody is potentially up for selection, which will be small number of people at any one time.
Anyway, maybe these points are the more important ones to focus on.
The MT eligibility question is important but not the core issue. He clearly doesn't meet any reasonable set of eligibility criteria so the question is does the past confusion justify an exception for him. I think no, others may think yes. But at least it's a yes/no.
I don't really care who said what when in past meetings/votes. I also don't really have any interest in the mechanics/codes etc used to register players as Scottish with FIDE, which no doubt could change from time to time anyway. I think the level we should be discussing at, and the rules should be defined at, is registered as Scottish at FIDE (whatever the mechanics are).
The core issues are (a) what should the eligibility criteria be and (b) should they be embedded in the constitution.
(b) is the less important of the 2, and I guess I am ambivalent. The higher vote threshold to make changes could be a pro or a con in different circumstances in the future.
(a) the actual criteria should be the focus of discussion. I think WB made this point a while back, and more recent posts have raised some questions in my mind anyway.
e.g. "birth" - how defined and evidenced, if required? I am no expert but I assume an official birth certificate or adoption certificate showing the birth or adoption occurred in Scotland would suffice. I think Guardianship is a whole other thing - wards of court etc, and not relevant.
"parentage" - at first sight simple - your birth/adoption certificate shows who your parents are and then you just apply the same "birth" criteria as above to them, right? But what about divorce/step-children etc? Should "parentage" apply only to original birth/adoptive parents? That's before you get into surrogates etc...I guess this is where the rules need some leeway in interpretation as hard to cover all circumstances.
generally birth and parentage are permanent so should confer permanent eligibility
"residency" - this can be much more temporary so is it right that it confers permanent eligibility? I didn't realise until WB pointed it out that under Proposal 1 somebody could become permanently eligible for Scotland just because they lived here for a year as a kid when their parent came for a work placement, or because they themselves happened to do a degree at a Scottish Uni many years ago. That doesn't feel tight to me. I see the EWP had a lot of debate and split opinions on this themselves, and the argument for this seems to boil down to logistics/data protection etc. I'm not convinced by that - it is only relevant if somebody is potentially up for selection, which will be small number of people at any one time.
Anyway, maybe these points are the more important ones to focus on.