Wikipedia

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Craig Pritchett
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 pm

Re: Wikipedia

Post by Craig Pritchett » Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:08 am

Just to observe on the 'affiliation' v 'join' point: it's the latter word that is insufficiently specific as it doesn't help identify the strength of the 'union' which 'joiners' actually 'join'. 'Affiliation' implies a loose compact and especially strongly that the parties agree that a 'right' to dis-affiliate exists.

If that had not been the case from 1908-1930, I don't think that the old SCA would have 'joined' the old BCF at all (I also think that what evidence there is points to that being the probable truth in that matter, although it would be good if it were possible to underscore that view by some in-depth historical research).

These things matter. It was, for example, a central issue re-the US Constitution in the mix of complex issues at the root of their Civil War! The Southern 'secessionists' claimed that that was their right. Abe Lincoln considered that the south had joined a 'perpetual union' and had no legal right to secede whatever!

UK often does things differently ... Westminster recently allowed a certain 'secessionist' referendum to go ahead somewhere we all know of recently ... they didn't have to but that's another story.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19271
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Wikipedia

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:21 am

Craig Pritchett wrote:'Affiliation' implies a loose compact and especially strongly that the parties agree that a 'right' to dis-affiliate exists.
The SCA was a voting member of the BCF from 1908 to around 1930 as demonstrated by being listed as such in BCF Yearbooks. If the concept of a Company limited by guarantee had existed in the law of the time and the BCF had been one, rather than an unincorporated Association, no doubt the SCA would have been asked to sign a form guaranteeing £ 1 in the event of the BCF's demise. As all chess bodies are essentially voluntary, every member has the right to cease membership.

You would have to read contemporary accounts to get a feel for what the row was that caused the SCA to leave. At a pinch, it was regarded as making demands above its station. If it ranked alongside the SCCU and the London League, insisting that the local champion should play in the 12 player British Championship and that the annual BCF Congress should be held frequently in their area, may have been regarded as unacceptable.

Craig Pritchett
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 pm

Re: Wikipedia

Post by Craig Pritchett » Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:54 am

Eh? I doubt if there was any 'row' that caused the SCA to conclude that continued affiliation to the BCF (in 1930) should cease. Nor is there likely to be any evidence that the SCA was making 'demands above its station'. If there were any such evidence, I'd like to be pointed to it. That could be the case but it seems highly speculative, to say the least, without any clear evidence for it.

My reading (based on MD Thornton's in-depth reading of the Scottish record - see above) is that, while the SCA saw some merit in affiliating to the BCF, it was always highly sceptical about the long-term value in doing that for the development and best health of Scottish chess at grass roots and internationally and concluded that it was in Scotland's interest to disaffiliate (in 1930), thereby reverting to a mode of organisation in chess that had suited Scotland well since 1884 (some 20 years before the BCF existed).

That step was hardly revolutionary and reflects the development of sports, such as football and rugby in all the home nations in the mid to late 1800s. Amateur athletics and the Olympic movement, which was based on a unitary 'state' basis of organisation was rather in those days (and even now in many sports) the exception.

Hence, there was no real opposition by the BCF to Scotland's affiliation to new kid on the block, FIDE. On the contrary, if I recall the FIDE record correctly on that one (unfortunately it seems to be far from being a full record), the BCF representative wished Scotland well in the process (though expressing some regret that it wished to take that step).

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19271
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Wikipedia

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:20 am

Craig Pritchett wrote: If there were any such evidence, I'd like to be pointed to it.
I just reread the chessbase article referenced earlier

http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-united ... th-feeling
Annual affiliation limped on into the 1920s, but became increasingly unsatisfactory and finally ceased in 1930. For one thing, the BCF would not even guarantee a place in its annual British Championships (even in those held in Scotland) for the Scottish champion.
If the SCA ranked in the BCF alongside the London League and the SCCU, those organisations would not have been able to secure a place amongst the invited 12 for the British Championship for their champion.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4228
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Wikipedia

Post by Stewart Reuben » Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:35 am

Tut. That sails very close to slander. The moderators may well delete that offensive post.

If upholding the statutes is wrong, so be it. Where I don't like statutes, I seek to change them.

You accused the UK of cheating in FIDE. That word can be defined as to deceive, defraud. Were you really saying that none of FIDE. FIFA and the International Rugby League knew about the different parts of the UK? They may have been wrong-headed in not changing the statutes, but can hardly be described as having been deceived about these matters.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19271
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Wikipedia

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:13 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote: Were you really saying that none of FIDE. FIFA and the International Rugby League knew about the different parts of the UK?
It's extremely commonplace in sports and cultural organisations for Scotland and sometimes Wales and Northern Ireland to have separate representation from England. Indeed it's the Olympic movement that is out of line to many other international bodies on this. FIDE could have more members than the IOC if it dropped the rule about having to have a national Olympic body, which in turn involves being a member of the UN. UEFA aren't bothered and have admitted Gibraltar.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 4212
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Wikipedia

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:11 pm

I think the Commonwealth Games have Isle of Man as a separate entity as well?

Post Reply