|
Scottish independence UK RIP? 聯(lián)合王國分崩離析？
譯者：老狒狒 SCHOOLCHILDREN once imagined their place in the world, with its complex networks and allegiances, by writing elaborate postal addresses. British youngsters began with their street and town (London or Manchester, Edinburgh or Cardiff), followed by England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland; then came the United Kingdom (and after that Europe, the World, the Universe…). They understood that the UK, and all its collective trials and achievements—the industrial revolution, the Empire, victory over the Nazis, the welfare state—were as much a part of their patrimony as the Scottish Highlands or English cricket. They knew, instinctively, that these concentric rings of identity were complementary, not opposed. 以前的時(shí)候，英國小學(xué)生在設(shè)想他們這個(gè)有著各種復(fù)雜的網(wǎng)絡(luò)和形形色色的臣民的地方在世界中所處的位置的時(shí)候，都會(huì)使用書寫精心編排的郵政地址的辦法：先寫出街道；接著是城市，如倫敦、曼徹斯特、愛丁堡或者加的夫；繼而是英格蘭、威爾士、蘇格蘭或者北愛爾蘭；然后是聯(lián)合王國；再往后是歐洲、世界，宇宙??。他們懂得，聯(lián)合王國以及聯(lián)合王國作為一個(gè)整體的足跡和成就，如工業(yè)革命、大英帝國、戰(zhàn)勝納粹和福利制度。所有這一切，就如同蘇格蘭的高地和英格蘭的板球一樣，都是祖先留給他們的遺產(chǎn)的一部分。他們本能地知道，這些身份的同心圓是相輔相成的，不是相互排斥的。 At least, they used to. After the referendum on Scottish independence on September 18th, one of those layers—the UK—may cease to exist, at least in the form recognisable since the Act of Union three centuries ago. As the vote nears, Scotland's nationalists have caught up with the unionist No camp in the opinion polls, and even edged ahead. More and more Scots are deciding that the UK, which their soldiers, statesmen, philosophers and businessmen have done so much to build and ornament, does not cradle their Scottishness but smothers it. This great multinational state could be undone in a single day, by a poll in which just 7% of its citizens will participate. That outcome, once unthinkable, would be bad for Scotland and tragic for what remained of the UK. 這些同心圓至少以前是這樣的。但是，在9月18日的蘇格蘭獨(dú)立公投后，其中的一層可能會(huì)不復(fù)存在，至少是不再會(huì)以三個(gè)世紀(jì)之前簽署《聯(lián)合法案》所認(rèn)可的那種形式存在了。隨著投票的日益臨近，蘇格蘭民族主義者已經(jīng)在民調(diào)中追了上了反對獨(dú)立的聯(lián)合陣營，甚至已經(jīng)取得了微弱的優(yōu)勢。越來越多的蘇格蘭人認(rèn)為，這個(gè)他們的士兵、政治家、哲人和商界人士花費(fèi)了如此多的精力去構(gòu)建并為其增光添彩的聯(lián)合王國，不但沒有呵護(hù)他們的蘇格蘭民族特性，反而是在扼殺他們的蘇格蘭民族特性。這個(gè)偉大的多民族國家可能會(huì)在一天之內(nèi)，被一次將只有7％的公民參與其中的投票所毀。這種曾經(jīng)不可想像的結(jié)果，對于蘇格蘭來說，是糟糕的，對于其身后的聯(lián)合王國來說，是悲劇性的。 The damage a split would do 分家的危害 The rump of Britain would be diminished in every international forum: why should anyone heed a country whose own people shun it? Since Britain broadly stands for free trade and the maintenance of international order, this would be bad for the world. Its status as a nuclear power would be doubtful: the country's nuclear submarines are based in a Scottish loch and could not be moved quickly. Britain would also be more likely to leave the European Union, since Scots are better disposed to Europe than are the English (and are less likely to vote for the Conservatives, who are promising a Euro-referendum if they win next year's general election). The prospect of a British exit from the EU would scare investors much more than a possible Scottish exit from Britain. 蘇格蘭離開后的英國無足輕重，會(huì)在所有的國際論壇中遭人輕視。為什么要對一個(gè)連自己的民眾都避而遠(yuǎn)之的國家高看一眼呢？由于英國是公認(rèn)的自由貿(mào)易和維護(hù)國際秩序的代表，因而，對于這個(gè)世界來說，這會(huì)是一個(gè)糟糕的結(jié)果。英國的核大國地位會(huì)存在不確定性。因?yàn)樗暮藵撏Щ鼐臀挥谔K格蘭的一處海灣中，且不能被迅速轉(zhuǎn)移。英國離開歐盟的可能性也會(huì)增加。這是因?yàn)樘K格蘭人對歐州有更多的好感，這是英格蘭人所不及的。同時(shí)，蘇格蘭人不大有可能把選票投給已經(jīng)承諾在明年大選獲勝后將就英國是否離開歐盟舉行一次公投的保守黨。英國離開歐盟的前景會(huì)嚇壞投資者，其程度遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)大于蘇格蘭可能離開英國。 The people of Scotland alone will decide the future of Britain, and they are not obliged to worry about what becomes of the state they would leave. But—perhaps not surprisingly, given the endurance and success of the union, imperilled though it is—Scots' own interests, and the rest of Britain's, coincide. 蘇格蘭民眾將獨(dú)自決定英國的未來，他們沒有義務(wù)為他們身后之國的前途擔(dān)憂。但是，考慮到大家已經(jīng)一起過成功地過了這么長的時(shí)間，盡管這種聯(lián)合危在旦夕，蘇格蘭人的利益仍然是同英國其他人的利益是息息相連的。這一點(diǎn)也許并不令人吃驚。 At the heart of the nationalist campaign is the claim that Scotland would be a more prosperous and more equal country if it went solo. It is rich in oil and inherently decent, say the nationalists, but impoverished by a government in Westminster that has also imposed callous policies. They blame successive British governments for almost every ill that has befallen Scotland, from the decline of manufacturing industry to ill-health to the high price of sending parcels in the Highlands. Alex Salmond, Scotland's nationalist leader, is broad in his recrimination: Labour and the Tories are of a piece, he suggests, in their disregard for Scotland. 民族主義陣營的核心觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為，如果單過，蘇格蘭會(huì)成為一個(gè)更加繁榮、更加平等的國家。民族主義者說，蘇格蘭富有石油，天生的正人君子，但是卻被一個(gè)始終還在對其施加無情政策的政府給搞窮了。在他們看來，落在他們頭上的幾乎所有的不幸，如制造業(yè)的衰落、健康狀況不佳以及在高地地區(qū)郵寄包裹的高價(jià)格，責(zé)任全在歷屆英國政府。蘇格蘭民族主義者的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人亞歷克斯·薩爾蒙德的指責(zé)很有代表性。他說：說到對蘇格蘭的不重視，工黨和保守黨沒有什么兩樣。 But Scotland's relative economic decline is the result not of southern neglect but of the shift of manufacturing and shipping to Asia. If Westminster has not reversed all the deleterious effects of globalisation and technology, that is because to do so is impossible. The nationalists know this, which is why, sotto voce, they would continue many of Westminster's policies. Instead they make much of minor adjustments, such as abolishing the “bedroom tax”, a recent measure designed to nudge people out of too-large social housing. To break up a country over such small, recent annoyances would be nuts. 但是，蘇格蘭經(jīng)濟(jì)的相對衰落不是南方不重視的結(jié)果，而是由于制造業(yè)和造船業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)移到亞洲所致。如果說英國政府一直沒有完全扭轉(zhuǎn)全球化和技術(shù)的有害影響，那是因?yàn)檫@樣做是不可能的。民族主義者對此心知肚明。因而，他們會(huì)不動(dòng)聲色地延續(xù)英國政府的許多政策。相反，他們所做的大多是一些微調(diào)，如取消最近專為迫使民眾搬出面積過大的公租房而設(shè)計(jì)的“臥室稅”就是如此。為這等小事而拆散一個(gè)國家，最近的種種煩惱無異于瘋言瘋語。 The nationalists’ economics are also flawed. Scotland would not, in fact, be richer alone. The taxes that would flow to it from the North Sea would roughly compensate for the extra cost of its lavish state, which would no longer be funded by Westminster (last year spending was some ￡1,300 per person higher in Scotland than elsewhere in Britain). But oil revenues are erratic. They would have earned Scotland ￡11.5 billion in 2008-09 but only ￡5.5 billion in 2012-13. If an independent state were to smooth these fluctuations by setting up an oil fund, it would have less cash to spend now. In any case, the oil is gradually running out. In order to maintain state spending after it is gone, taxes would have to rise. And a crunch might come much sooner. Foreign investors and big businesses that mostly serve English customers could well move south. 民族主義者的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)也是有缺陷的。實(shí)際上，蘇格蘭不會(huì)因?yàn)閱芜^而更加富有。今后來自北海的稅收收入也就是剛夠這個(gè)花起錢來大手大腳且今后再也得不到英國政府資金援助的政府的額外開支之用（英國政府去年花在蘇格蘭的開銷，按人頭算，比花在其他地區(qū)的大約多出1300英鎊）。但是，石油收入是不固定的。它們能在2008財(cái)年給蘇格蘭帶來115億英鎊的收入，但是，在2012財(cái)年只有55億英鎊。倘若一個(gè)獨(dú)立的國家準(zhǔn)備利用建立一支石油基金的辦法來填平這些波動(dòng)，那么，現(xiàn)在可用來支出的現(xiàn)金就必然會(huì)有所減少?？傊?，石油正在慢慢地耗盡。為了維持石油耗盡后的政府開支，稅收必然會(huì)提高。關(guān)鍵時(shí)刻的到來可能會(huì)大大提前。大多數(shù)為英格蘭客戶服務(wù)的外國投資者和大公司很可能會(huì)搬到南邊去。 Westminster has ruled out a currency union—correctly, given that the nationalists propose a deficit-widening fiscal splurge and that the assets of Scottish banks are an alarming 12 times the country's GDP. It might relent, but only if Scotland agrees to such strict oversight that independence ends up meaning little. The nationalists say that kinks over currency and the like could be worked out amicably—that it would not be in Britain's interests to antagonise its new northern neighbour, particularly since (they hint darkly) Scotland could refuse to take on its share of the national debt. They are far too sanguine. If Scotland goes, the rest of Britain will be furious, both at the Scots and at their own leaders, who will be impelled to drive a hard bargain. 英國政府已經(jīng)排除了貨幣聯(lián)盟的可能性——考慮到民族主義者建議大幅提高財(cái)政赤字以及蘇格蘭的銀行資產(chǎn)已經(jīng)令人警醒地達(dá)到該國GDP12倍這兩個(gè)事實(shí)，這個(gè)決定是正確的。如果蘇格蘭同意對其進(jìn)行嚴(yán)格得令獨(dú)立失去意義的監(jiān)督，事態(tài)本來是有緩和余地的。蘇格蘭民族主義者說，有關(guān)貨幣問題的糾結(jié)能夠和平解決。激怒北方的新鄰居不符合英國的利益，特別是在蘇格蘭可能會(huì)拒絕承擔(dān)它應(yīng)該承擔(dān)的那部分國家債務(wù)的情況下更是如此。他們樂觀得過頭了。如果蘇格蘭離開英國，其他地區(qū)將會(huì)對蘇格蘭人以及他們自己的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人產(chǎn)生極度的不滿，使得這些領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人被迫去推動(dòng)一場艱苦的討價(jià)還價(jià)。 Mr Salmond is on stronger ground when he argues that if Scotland does not leave Britain it might be dragged out of the EU against its will. This is indeed a danger, but in going independent Scotland would swap the possibility of an EU exit for a certain future as a small, vulnerable country. Its best hope of remaining influential is to stay put, and fight the Eurosceptics. 薩爾蒙德說，如果蘇格蘭不離開英國，它可能會(huì)受到拖累，在違背其意愿的情況下，被迫離開歐盟。他的這番話是很有道理的。這確實(shí)是一個(gè)危險(xiǎn)。但是，如果蘇格蘭選擇獨(dú)立，就等于是在拿未來成為一個(gè)脆弱小國的確定性來交換離開歐盟的可能性。對蘇格蘭來說，保持影響力的最佳希望就是留下來，同疑歐派進(jìn)行斗爭。 A lot to lose 會(huì)失去很多 In the end the referendum will turn not on calculations of taxes and oil revenue, but on identity and power. The idea that Scots can shape their own destiny, both at the referendum and afterwards, is exhilarating. Yet Scotland already controls many of its own affairs (even if Mr Salmond's Scottish National Party, which runs the devolved government and is driving the Yes campaign, has not done much with its powers so far). Moreover, as Westminster politicians of all stripes have hastily made clear, if Scotland votes No, the devolved administration will soon get so much clout that the practical difference between staying in the union and leaving it will narrow. That would also lead to the distribution of power away from Westminster and to other bits of Britain, which should have happened long ago. 總之，公投既取決于稅收收入和石油收入的考量，也取決于身份和權(quán)力的考量。認(rèn)為蘇格蘭人能在公投中和公投后塑造其自身命運(yùn)的想法是令人神往的。然而，蘇格蘭早就在掌控自己的事務(wù)，而且還不在少數(shù)。（即便是在運(yùn)作著權(quán)力下放政府同時(shí)還在推動(dòng)獨(dú)立公投的薩爾蒙德的蘇格蘭民族黨至今仍未使用這些權(quán)力的情況下也是如此）。此外，英國政府中所有政黨的政客已經(jīng)匆忙地表明了這樣一個(gè)想法：如果蘇格蘭投票反對離開，那么，權(quán)力下放政府不久就會(huì)得到更多的權(quán)力，這不僅會(huì)讓留下來和離開之間幾乎不存在實(shí)際的差距，還會(huì)帶來早就應(yīng)該有的來自英國政府的權(quán)力分散以及將權(quán)力交給其他地區(qū)。 So by staying in, Scots will not just save the union but enhance it, as they have for 300 years. For the UK, with all its triumphs and eccentricities, belongs to Scots as much as it does to the English—even if increasing numbers of them seem ready to disown that glorious, hard-earned heritage, and to simplify their identities by stripping out one of those concentric rings. That goes against both the spirit of this fluid century—in which most people have multiple identities, whether of place, ethnicity or religion—and the evidence of the preceding three. For all its tensions and rivalries, and sometimes because of them, the history of the union shows that the Scots, Welsh, English and Northern Irish are stronger, more tolerant and more imaginative together than they would be apart. 因此，如果蘇格蘭選擇留下來，它不僅會(huì)拯救聯(lián)合王國，還會(huì)讓聯(lián)合王國變得更強(qiáng)大，就像他們在過去的300多年中一直在做的那樣。因?yàn)?，這個(gè)有著種種成就和怪癖的聯(lián)合王國，不僅是屬于英格蘭的，也是屬于蘇格蘭的——縱然是在準(zhǔn)備放棄來之不易光榮傳統(tǒng)、準(zhǔn)備強(qiáng)行拆除那些同心圓中的一個(gè)以簡化自己的身份的人似乎越來越多的情況下也是如此。離開聯(lián)合王國，既是對這個(gè)大多數(shù)人都擁有地域、種族或者宗教等多重身份的流動(dòng)世紀(jì)的精神的背叛，也是與上述三種身份的證據(jù)不相符的。聯(lián)合王國的歷史告訴我們：盡管蘇格蘭人、威爾士人、英格蘭人和北愛爾蘭人之間不乏關(guān)系緊張和競爭對立，同時(shí)，有時(shí)也正是因?yàn)檫@些對立和競爭，才使得他們在團(tuán)結(jié)在一起時(shí)比分開來單過時(shí)，更加強(qiáng)大，更具寬容性，更有想像力。 From the print edition: Leaders |
|
|
