English Chess Forum

At risk of derailing the topic totally,

In the context of Catalonia, it's been made clear that independence would mean that a re-application to the EU would be necessary. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to Scotland.

Hi Matt,

Pretty sure the FA could bring a rule saying you are only allowed to, as I said, 'field' 5 foreign players.

There is a current law in place saying no club is allowed to have more
than 17 'none home grown' players on it's books. No objection from the EU there.
This could easily be implented into fielding only 5 'none home grown players.'

(This I know, I do not know if any other countries have the same rule which
may infact state you can have only 5 or 10 foreign players.)

Any EU objection would be like them picking the actual team that plays.
And an EU objection to the words 'home grown' would be pretty slim.
FIFA and most other sporting bodies recognise foreign borders.

You could make a case that because the player is plying his trade in England,
is getting paid by an English club belonging to the FA, so therefore that player
should be allowed to play for England. If not then he should not be allowed
to play against the country whose FA he belongs too.

In business terms it would be like a employer working for both major competitors.

Anyway, the objection from the field only 5 foreign players would come from the clubs and not the EU.
The Arsenal and Everton would lead the queue.

Geoff Chandler wrote:Pretty sure the FA could bring a rule saying you are only allowed to, as I said, 'field' 5 foreign players.

There is a current law in place saying no club is allowed to have more
than 17 'none home grown' players on it's books. No objection from the EU there.
This could easily be implented into fielding only 5 'none home grown players.'

Yes, but Home Grown is deliberately defined in such a way as to not discriminate between EU member states. Cesc Fabregas is a Home Grown player for English clubs, even though he's a Spain international.

Rob Thompson wrote:At risk of derailing the topic totally,

In the context of Catalonia, it's been made clear that independence would mean that a re-application to the EU would be necessary. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to Scotland.

This is one of the great unknowns of the debate.

I think the likeliest scenario is we would have to (re-)apply, and would be unlikely to be allowed any of the opt-outs the UK currently enjoys. This view is by no means uniformly accepted.

Geoff Chunterer talking pure bo**ocks: nothing new there! "Home-grown" translates as "EU resident for the purposes of employment".

As for Scotland and the EU, despite Wee Eck's continual bull**it to the contrary, there can be no expectation that Scotland remains an EU member should it come to pass that it leaves the United Kingdom. Scotland would have to apply as a new member. (Treaties adopted under international law do not generally work like that for newly independent states: one is generally seen as a successor to the treaties, the other is newly fledged.) Assuming that it would continue to adopt the Acquis Communautaire post independence, the process ought to be quick, though. It might be possible to carry it out, during a transition period between plebiscite and eventual independence, although there is no precedent for that. Regarding an independent Scottish state retaining the UK's budget rebate, freedom from compulsion to join the ERM and absence of obligation to join Schengen, then clearly Wee Eck is smoking huge quantities of blue and white tinted dope.

(Personally, I would be delighted if the UK and Ireland participated in the Schengen free travel area, as I can see no benefits whatsoever in remaining outside of it, merely risible and delusional petty nationalist tabloid ideas. But that is as maybe.)