Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: BC vs SCA costs

  1. #1

    Default BC vs SCA costs

    Does anybody know why membership of the BC costs nearly double that of the SCA, when both include membership of the other? Can't join SCA without a Scottish address, but seems a rip off to me when they both provide the same thing.

    Views?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    874

    Default

    BC includes a licence for Canals, etc, and SCA doesn't (as there aren't many canals in Scotland and the SCA membership overall didn't want it). I'm not sure that explains all the difference!

    It's not quite correct to say each includes membership of the other; for some reason I fail to understand to point of (but BC say reflects what Government does) BC is both the British overarching organisation AND the English membership organisation. So SCA is a member of BC, but not vice versa, and it's not the same BC that members in England belong to. If that sounds confusing, it's because it is.

  3. #3

    Default

    Hi,

    Thanks Chris_B - that's how I initially understood it, but reading the membership details on the SCA website it says

    Benefits


    • ** whole load of stuff here, not interested in **
    • Reciprocal British Canoeing membership



    And that last bit is the bit I want, and it clearly says it's included - so where's the catch?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    3,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_suffolk View Post

    • Reciprocal British Canoeing membership



    And that last bit is the bit I want, and it clearly says it's included - so where's the catch?
    The only thing that seems to be reciprocal is the ability to enter events organised by any of the other national organisations run under the overall banner of BC.

    It seems to only apply to competitions as far as I can see.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
    The only thing that seems to be reciprocal is the ability to enter events organised by any of the other national organisations run under the overall banner of BC.

    It seems to only apply to competitions as far as I can see.
    Where are you reading that bit? I got mine bit from a list of benefits on the membership page, where the implication (as I read it) is that BC membership is included as a reciprocal arrangement.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    874

    Default

    Competition and Coaching are both under the banner of "UK" BC, and should be available to SCA members. That's the message it's intended to give, I think the word 'reciprocal' is incorrect. What is it in SCA membership that you want?

  7. #7

    Default

    I was wanting the river licence bit, and it seems to be £45 in England, but £25 in Scotland (including England). Hence my comment about English residents being ripped off.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    3,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_suffolk View Post
    I was wanting the river licence bit, and it seems to be £45 in England, but £25 in Scotland (including England). Hence my comment about English residents being ripped off.
    I have wanted to have the licence element too and have in the past contacted Canoe England/BC and SCA to ask about it. I was told that if I wanted the licence for the English and Welsh canals and rivers I would have to join EC/BC as well as SCA. I could not join EC/BC only because I live in Scotland. I pointed out the reciprocal rights thing and was told that it does not apply to the Licence. I also asked if there could be a way that we in Scotland could get the licence at a discount and the reply was no and there were no plans to do anything about it as apparently no one in Scotland wants it (according to SCA).
    No one seems to be very helpful for the folk in Scotland who want to canoe in England or Wales recreationally which bolsters my belief that the national bodies are only interested in competition and getting more people to canoe/kayak so they can find more potential competitors.

    The Scottish canals do not need a licence as they are still publicly owned and the Land Reform Act access rules apply.

    I have also looked at what EC/BC pay for the licence (from the annual accounts) and calculated that it is worth about £7 from each of the EC/BC members subs..

    The only option open to us in Scotland is to buy the necessary licence from the appropriate navigation authority for the waterway we want to paddle. Short term licences are available but one needs to have everything planned and sorted ahead of the time one goes paddling.

    It does make it very tempting to just go canoeing on the waterways and take a chance on not being challenged for a licence.

    I wonder why I bother to be a member of SCA as the only thing they provide that might be useful is the third party insurance which is required for using the controlled navigations.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    874

    Default

    I was wanting the river licence bit, and it seems to be £45 in England, but £25 in Scotland (including England)
    I wouldn't call it a 'rivers' licence - the only rivers included are the canalised ones. But as regards rivers, I hope that some of the remaining difference between BC (England) and SCA membership is that England doesn't have the legal clarity around access to rivers that Scotland has, and BC has recently adopted new policies in this area and seem to be putting more effort into resolving it. One other reason is that each National Association has its own magazine, and the costs for that may differ.
    The only option open to us in Scotland
    I understand that it has been known for people to join using a friend or relative's address in the other country; since it's 99% electronic there's not much mail to forward. That seems fair enough if you going to paddle there and need some of the specific benefits; you're effectively a part time resident. The intention of the rule was, I think, to enable each National Association to set its subs independently without everybody going to the cheapest.

  10. #10

    Default BC vs SCA costs

    Itís exactly the same for things like the National Trust - I did consider joining the Scottish National Trust as a life member many years ago and could probably have had quite a nice holiday on the money I would have saved in the mean time - but really it is more a discount for Scottish members who wonít use most of the English network than English members getting overcharged. The Scots very sensibly make access to most of their waterways free.

    But annoying, obviously, if you want the English provision.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dumbarton
    Posts
    2,745

    Default

    The reciprocal parts are:
    Competition rights (full members only)
    Coaching scheme (full members only to be coaches)
    £10million third party liability insurance

    Scotland has always had more open access than England and Wales and this was enshrined in the Land Reform Act such that you have a right to responsible access over open land (including to water), and such that bodies with power to control access (like Scottish Canals and local authorities) are actually mandated to look at ways to provide access rather than restrict it.
    This is not to say that there are never access problems in Scotland, but there is a fund for that sort of thing which is held in trust and contributed to by things such as sales of guidebooks, rather than through membership fees.

    England has all sorts of complicated access problems, and although BC is supposed to have had a policy of not supporting access agreements and paying for access for several years, it would appear that they still include licenses for a number of controlled waterways (usually lowland rivers that act as navigations for larger vessels which pay fees) as part of the membership fee - which seems to me to be paying for access? Irrespective of that, it is clear that BC have a whole lot of additional costs for administration of such schemes.

    Now the really confusing part is that BC is supposed to be a federation of national governing bodies, so that SCA, WCA, CANI and the English equivalent are all members of BC (hence certain reciprocal rights), but for some reason that has never been fully explained, the English governing body has never really existed - for a few years english BC members were made members of Canoe England, but it was never really separated from BC and they abandoned it a year or 2 ago reverting to BC being both the English NGB and federation of NGBs at the same time.

    So, why is BC membership almost twice as much - firstly it isn't because you are not comapring equivalent levels. The SCA membership that is equivalent to the £45 BC membership costs £36 (or £39 if you don't pay by direct debit) so the price difference is not as great as your headline!

    As for whether the £9 difference really is all down to waterways licenses, it is hard to fathom - the organisations are operating within different legal systems and require different levels of permanent staff and are situated in different parts of the UK where cost of living may be vastly different, it really is like trying to compare apples with oranges!

    Also what you are missing when simply looking for the cheapest membership, is that SCA do nothing at all towards supporting or developing paddling in England. Now I know many people consider they don't ever benefit from the work that BC (or SCA) do but it is kind of like the "What have the Romans ever done for us?" scene from Life of Brian - except that for the most part it is probably even less obvious than the things in the scene.

    BC don't support paddling in Scotland, SCA don't support paddling in England - you wouldn't want to pay your council tax to highland council if you live in Birmingham would you? I know you don't want to pay it all, none of us do, but if you have to pay it, you want there to be a chance you will benefit from it.

    How hard can it be?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ipswich, England
    Posts
    765

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimW View Post
    ......So, why is BC membership almost twice as much - firstly it isn't because you are not comapring equivalent levels. The SCA membership that is equivalent to the £45 BC membership costs £36 (or £39 if you don't pay by direct debit) so the price difference is not as great as your headline!

    As for whether the £9 difference really is all down to waterways licenses, it is hard to fathom - the organisations are operating within different legal systems and require different levels of permanent staff and are situated in different parts of the UK where cost of living may be vastly different, it really is like trying to compare apples with oranges!

    Also what you are missing when simply looking for the cheapest membership, is that SCA do nothing at all towards supporting or developing paddling in England. Now I know many people consider they don't ever benefit from the work that BC (or SCA) do but it is kind of like the "What have the Romans ever done for us?" scene from Life of Brian - except that for the most part it is probably even less obvious than the things in the scene.

    BC don't support paddling in Scotland, SCA don't support paddling in England - you wouldn't want to pay your council tax to highland council if you live in Birmingham would you? I know you don't want to pay it all, none of us do, but if you have to pay it, you want there to be a chance you will benefit from it.
    Very well said.
    I know someone local to me (East Anglia) who used to join Canoe Wales to make a saving (using a relatives address in Wales) which seemed very wrong as they never ever paddled in Wales. Not sure there is any difference in cost now though.

  13. #13
    Crow's Avatar
    Crow is offline こんにちは。私はカラスと私はスコットラ ンドの出身で す。
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Third stone from the sun
    Posts
    16,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimW View Post
    Now the really confusing part is that BC is supposed to be a federation of national governing bodies, so that SCA, WCA, CANI and the English equivalent are all members of BC (hence certain reciprocal rights), but for some reason that has never been fully explained, the English governing body has never really existed - for a few years english BC members were made members of Canoe England, but it was never really separated from BC and they abandoned it a year or 2 ago reverting to BC being both the English NGB and federation of NGBs at the same time.
    Yes that is strange.

    I was told it was to mirror the government structure, where there is a UK Parliament and devolved Parliaments but no English parliament. But why they have to copy that weird structure beats me.

    I wonder how other NGBs, e.g. mountaineering and cycling, do it?

    Here comes the future and you can't run from it
    If you've got a blacklist I want to be on it


    Crow Trip Log

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •