From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Mon Oct 26 17:10:17 1998
Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA09740
	for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:53:06 GMT
Received: from epunix.biols.susx.ac.uk (root@epunix.biols.susx.ac.uk [139.184.162.2])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA09703
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:53:01 GMT
Received: from localhost (4653 bytes) by epunix.biols.susx.ac.uk
	via sendmail with P:stdio/R:acukbind/T:smtp
	(sender: <kevinbr>) (ident <kevinbr> using unix)
	id <m0zXpsn-000A7zC@epunix.biols.susx.ac.uk>
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:52:41 +0000 (GMT)
	(Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #10 built 1998-Feb-1)
Message-Id: <m0zXpsn-000A7zC@epunix.biols.susx.ac.uk>
From: kevinbr@biols.susx.ac.uk (Kevin Brooks)
Subject: Re: Is Scotland a Country?   (was Re: Scott's comment on worlds
To: awilson@ascend.com (Andrew Wilson)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:52:41 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk, kevinbr@biols.susx.ac.uk
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19981026142342.00a10220@snoopy.eng.ascend.com> from "Andrew Wilson" at Oct 26, 98 03:26:45 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk


> I agree that Scotland has been made a special case this year, but hopefully
> for reasons most of us can agree with. 

Then please state them, that's all I ask.

I'm not trying to put anyone
down, especially not the likes of Sneeeky's, Mud Culture, Flying
Sorcerers, etc, all of whom I have much respect for. I just want to
understand the logic of the whole thing.

> Your Essex argument is silly. Essex
> isn't a country, so of course it shouldn't go to World Clubs as Host
> Nation. You could argue that in British Ultimate, Scotland isn't a
> country... This is the crux of the issue.
> 
Yes - the Essex point was meant to be silly. It highlighted the fact
that since there is no Essex Ultimate Federation, representing the
independent nation of Essex, containing teams that do not have the
chance of earning their right to play in WUCC in the BUF Tour, that they
wouldn't have been given extra places. That would have been silly. 
It wasn't, and isn't supposed to be offensive to Scots. And neither are
any of my other points, before I start to lose friends.

The issue certainly isn't whether Scotland is a nation (ie generally,
politically, etc), but in Ultimate they fall, just as we English do,
under the auspices of the BUF.

[Aside: If it were being held in Cardiff, would/should 2 Welsh teams be
allowed to enter *in addition* to the number of Welsh teams that qualify
BY RIGHT at the top of the tour table?]

> FYI Colchester 94 was WUGC (ie national teams). Street (Glastonbury) 95 was
> WUCC (clubs). 

My mistake - thanks for the correction. Like I said: before my time. 

> As it turned out there were 'extra' English teams, or more
> correctly, BUF teams, to fill up the numbers after other countries dropped
> out.
> 
OK - read my message again. 
I wrote...
...were English teams allocated for *extra* places, which
could not have been filled by other BUF clubs...

By that, I meant extra places that could not have been filled by
Scottish, Welsh or Irish teams, should they have proven themselves
worthy by whatever selection procedure was around at the time.

> Jon is referring to the Sneeekys team that played the Tour last year. It's
> not a 'Scottish National Team'. Players from St Andrews and Glasgow played
> for Sneeekys because their usual clubs couldn't make all the tour
> tournaments. This was all well within the tour rules. Don't forget that we
> have to make a mini-bus trip of 5-10 hours each way...

I am not questioning the legitimacy of that practice, (indeed, I did it myself)
and I certainly admire all of those players from far corners of the BUF who
travel long distances so regularly to compete in BUF competitions. I do
not envy them. But if you play as a team in the Tour, especially as Jon
'Big Funky' said (and I quote) 
"in an effort to
get into the habit of playing with each other for worlds"
then surely you should enter WUCC as the same team - assuming that you
win the right to represent Britain in that tourney.

> >Perhaps there is an obvious reason, and I'm just being dense, but can
> >anyone explain to me why teams in any region of the BUF's jurisdiction
> >should have any preferential treatment?
> 
> It would look a bit silly to the rest of the world if the host nation
> wasn't represented. In their eyes, they are going to Scotland, rather than
> Britain. Believe me, I've traveled - the rest of the world can't get their
> heads round the UK.

Why should we pervert the selection procedure simply because there are a
lot of people out there who don't understand the UK make-up?
It's not the fault of the British clubs of proven higher quality who will
suffer.

The host nation is being represented. It's Britain. If there was a SUF,
and SUF tour, etc. then I could understand it. Scottish teams are having
two bites at the cherry - try to qualify via the tour, and if you can't,
then well, don't worry: *whoever* will take pity on us and give us a
place (or 2) anyway. If the tables were turned I'd find this completely
insulting (though, of course, I'd take whatever I could get!).

Looking forward to Edinburgh Beginners tourney,

Locks,
Mohawks et al.