各方名流發聲:蘇格蘭應該留在英國

The United Kingdom ranks as one of the most successful marriages in history. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have survived ancient hatreds, tribal rivalry and war. Each nation has been enriched by a journey of enlightenment, empire, shared energy and enterprise.

聯合王國(United Kingdom)是史上最成功的聯姻之一。英格蘭、蘇格蘭、威爾士和北愛爾蘭經歷過歷史恩怨、部落敵對和戰爭，卻最終走到了一起。啓蒙運動、帝國的輝煌、共同的活力與進取，這段旅程讓其中的每個民族都得到了豐富。

In seven days, this splendid mess of a union, to quote Simon Schama, the British historian, risks being separated into its national parts. Scotland will vote in a referendum to decide whether to stay in the UK or sunder bonds stretching back to 1707. Opinion polls suggest the result is too close to call, a prospect which has alarmed financial markets, wrongfooted allies and sent a complacent coalition government scrambling to find a last-minute sweetener to win over the Scots.

幾天後，這個“偉大而混亂的聯盟”（借用英國曆史學家西蒙•沙瑪(Simon Schama)的說法）就有可能分裂爲不同的民族國家。蘇格蘭將在9月18日舉行公投，投票決定是繼續留在英國，還是割裂蘇格蘭與英格蘭自1707年起結成的聯盟。民意調查結果顯示，支持和反對獨立的票數可能過於接近、難有清晰的勝負。這一前景讓金融市場陷入了動盪，讓英國的盟友慌了神，讓原本自命不凡的英國聯合政府急急忙忙尋找最後時刻的籠絡手段，以爭取蘇格蘭人留下。

Empires and nation states are not immune to break-up, but there is little precedent for a hitherto stable modern democracy splitting in peacetime, in the middle of an economic recovery. This is not the time for recrimination. For the moment, it is enough for this newspaper to declare that the path of separation is a fool’s errand, one fraught with danger and uncertainty.

帝國和民族國家有時不免會分裂，但一個迄今爲止穩定的現代民主國家，在和平時期和經濟復甦進程中分裂，這樣的先例少之又少。眼下不是相互指責的時候。就目前而言，英國《金融時報》認爲，僅僅這樣說就足夠了——分裂是一件徒勞無益、充滿了危險和不確定的事情。

Scotland is a proud and vibrant nation. Scots have contributed disproportionately to the union. They have played a leading role in arts, commerce, literature, the military, politics and sport. But a vote in favour of secession would be an irreversible act with profound consequences, not merely for 5m Scots but also for the other 58m citizens of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (including 750,000 Scots living and working outside Scotland who under the terms of the referendum have no say on the future of their country).

蘇格蘭是一個充滿了自豪和活力的民族。蘇格蘭人對聯盟的貢獻遠遠超過了其在英國總人口中所佔比例。蘇格蘭人在藝術、商業、文學、軍事、政治和體育中發揮着領先的作用。但投票決定獨立是一件無法回頭的事情，會產生深遠影響——不僅會影響到500萬蘇格蘭人，還會影響到其他5800萬生活在英格蘭、威爾士和北愛爾蘭的英國人（其中包括75萬在蘇格蘭以外生活和工作、根據公投規則無法爲自己國家的未來投上一票的蘇格蘭人）。

The act of separation would diminish the UK in every international body, notably the EU. It would raise complex – and still unanswered – questions about the common defence of the British Isles, the future of the currency and political arrangements for the rest of the UK. Above all, a Yes vote would ignore the lessons of the 20th century, a chapter in European history indelibly scarred by narrow nationalism.

分裂會削弱英國在每一個國際機構中的地位，特別是在歐盟(EU)中的地位。隨之而來的還有各種複雜、且仍然無解的問題，比如不列顛羣島的共同防衛、英鎊的未來、以及英國其餘地區在政治上的安排。最重要的是，如果投票結果支持獨立，那將是忽視20世紀的教訓——狹隘的民族主義在歐洲的這一歷史篇章中留下了永恆的傷疤。

A union born of a now-lost empire is one entirely suited to the world of the 21st century. The nation states that prosper in the age of globalisation are ones that bind themselves together in mutual endeavour. The experience of small states in the wake of the financial crisis is far from happy. Iceland and Ireland were left cruelly exposed. Further east, the Baltic states, brave and resourceful as the Scots, are members of the EU and Nato but still feel vulnerable to the bear’s paw of a revanchist Russia.

脫胎於如今已消逝的大英帝國的英格蘭與蘇格蘭的聯盟完全適合於21世紀的世界。在全球化時代蓬勃發展的民族國家，是那些通過共同努力實現民族聯合的國家。金融危機後那些小國的經歷堪稱悲慘。冰島和愛爾蘭當時都非常無助。往東，與蘇格蘭人一樣勇敢和足智多謀的波羅的海國家，儘管是歐盟和北約(Nato)成員國，但在復仇主義俄羅斯的熊爪面前仍然自覺脆弱。

The case against secession cannot rest on nostalgia, though the Better Together campaign has been lamentably short of passion compared with the energetic, well-funded Yes effort run by Alex Salmond, the beguiling first minister of Scotland. It must rest first on an understanding of the political forces which have made independence a tempting prospect for Scots, as well as a hard-nosed assessment of the risks involved for all concerned.

反對分裂不能只打懷舊牌，但令人扼腕的是，“在一起更好”(Better Together)運動與“獨立蘇格蘭”(Yes Scotland)運動相比太缺乏激情了。富有迷惑力的蘇格蘭首席大臣亞歷克斯•薩爾蒙德(Alex Salmond)領導的“獨立蘇格蘭”運動則充滿活力，且資金充裕。要有理有據地反對分裂，首先要理解是哪些政治作用力使得獨立成爲蘇格蘭人嚮往的前景，並對涉及所有相關方的風險進行注重實際的評估。

The debate about devolving power to Scotland goes back more than a century. Keir Hardie, the Scottish Labour leader, proposed home rule in 1888 but his call carried little resonance. Scots were playing a leading role in ruling one-quarter of the world’s population. Glasgow was famed as the “second city of the empire”.

關於向蘇格蘭下放權力的辯論可追溯至一個多世紀以前。1888年，當時的蘇格蘭工黨領袖基爾•哈迪(Keir Hardie)曾呼籲蘇格蘭自治，但反響不大。那時的大英帝國統治着全世界四分之一的人口，而蘇格蘭人正積極參與這種統治。格拉斯哥在當時被譽爲“大英帝國第二大城市”。

The ties that bind have loosened over the past 70 years. The empire is gone, and the workshop of the world is no more. Scotland’s transition to a post-industrialised economy has been painful, though its overall economic performance over recent decades has been strong.

曾經緊密的紐帶在過去70年中漸漸鬆弛。大英帝國已逝去，英國也不再是“世界工廠”。蘇格蘭經濟在後工業時代經歷了痛苦的轉型，不過在近幾十年，其經濟一直整體表現強勁。

England and Scotland have grown apart politically. In the 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party – to remind David Cameron’s party of its proper name – had an absolute majority of parliamentary seats in Scotland. Today, the Tory party’s representation has shrunk to a single MP, partly a legacy of Margaret Thatcher’s ill-judged poll tax and the benign neglect of a strong pound which devastated manufacturing north and south of the border. The discovery of North Sea oil in the 1960s further reinforced Scottish nationalism.

英格蘭和蘇格蘭在政治上漸行漸遠。上世紀50年代，在英國國會裏代表蘇格蘭各選區的議席中，保守與統一黨（Conservative and Unionist party，保守黨的現任首相戴維•卡梅倫應注意，這纔是保守黨的全稱）佔絕對多數。如今，託利黨（Tory party，保守黨的別稱——譯者注）議席縮減爲僅1席。這在某種程度上要歸罪於瑪格麗特•撒切爾(Margaret Thatcher)當年失策的人頭稅，以及對英鎊走強的善意忽視（強勢英鎊摧毀了蘇格蘭和英格蘭的製造業）。上世紀60年代北海發現石油，進一步助長了蘇格蘭人的民族主義。

Tony Blair believed he could stymie the nationalist movement with more devolution of powers. His Labour government established a Scottish parliament at Holyrood. In retrospect, devolution did nothing to halt the secular decline of Labour in Scotland. Too many of the party’s heavyweights treated Scotland as a rotten borough to help them to power in London. Devolution may have encouraged further divergence on policies such as pensions, social care or university education from those in England.

託尼•布萊爾(Tony Blair)以爲他可以通過加大權力下放來阻止民族主義運動。他領導的工黨政府在愛丁堡的聖路德(Holyrood)建立了蘇格蘭議會。回過頭來看，權力下放絲毫未能阻止工黨在蘇格蘭的長期衰落。工黨太多重量級人物都曾將蘇格蘭當作“爛行政區”（rotten borough，指《1832年改革法案》(Reform Act 1832)出臺前，英國的一些選民數量極少、因而選票容易被操縱的行政區——譯者注），借之幫助自己在倫敦高升。權力下放或許促使了蘇格蘭與英格蘭在養老、社會保障、大學教育等政策方面的差異進一步擴大。

Mr Salmond, a seasoned operator, has exploited the populist mood. Voters are angry about austerity caused by the financial crisis and alienated from the political establishment. Mr Salmond casts himself as an insurgent representing a new brand of civic nationalism in which the Scots will have control over their fate in a fresh young democracy.

薩爾蒙德是個老道的操縱者，他一直在利用這種民粹主義情緒。選民對金融危機導致的緊縮政策感到憤怒，與政治當權派產生了隔閡。薩爾蒙德將自己塑造爲一個反叛者，代表一種新的公民民族主義，跟隨這種民族主義，蘇格蘭人將通過一個嶄新的新生民主國家掌握自己的命運。

Mr Salmond can tug on the emotions of his fellow countrymen but he has given few credible answers about the challenges – economic, social and international – which would face Scotland. His Panglossian pitch is that the Scots can have the best of all possible worlds: independence, the monarchy and the pound, and that a Scotland which retreats into a narrower nationalist identity will somehow be better equipped to prosper in a world of globalisation.

薩爾蒙德可以利用同胞的感情，但對於蘇格蘭可能面臨的經濟、社會和國際方面的挑戰，他沒有給出多少可信的答案。他的論調洋溢着過分樂觀主義，說蘇格蘭可以擁有一切最好的——獨立、君主制、還有英鎊；他還說，蘇格蘭在退回更狹隘的民族主義身份之後，將以某種方式變得更適於在全球化世界中蓬勃發展。

His argument contains glaring inconsistencies. A currency union demands a political union. The eurozone’s travails show us as much. Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, made clear again this week that political independence is incompatible with maintaining sterling as the currency of choice. Mr Salmond insists the English establishment is bluffing. This is no bluff. The currency uncertainty will blight every aspect of the Scottish economy, from commercial lending to mortgages. Without total clarity, every Scottish citizen is left exposed.

他的主張有顯而易見的矛盾之處。貨幣聯盟要求政治聯盟。歐元區的痛苦經歷就充分表明了這一點。英國央行(BoE)行長馬克•卡尼(Mark Carney)上週已明確表示，政治獨立與保留英鎊爲法定貨幣，兩者不可兼得。薩爾蒙德堅稱，英格蘭當權派是在危言聳聽。但這不是危言聳聽。貨幣方面的不確定將讓蘇格蘭經濟的每個方面蒙上陰影，從商業貸款到抵押貸款。沒有充分的確定性，每個蘇格蘭公民都面臨風險。

Mr Salmond claims that separation is the best guarantee of future prosperity. His calculations are based on much wishful thinking covering vital matters such as the future oil price and how much of the UK’s debt would be assumed by the Scots. He presumes that it serves no one’s interest to be unreasonable about the terms of divorce, but he under-estimates the psychological shock. No one can predict the consequences.

薩爾蒙德宣稱，獨立是未來繁榮的最佳保證。他打的算盤大都基於一廂情願的想法，掩蓋了未來石油價格、蘇格蘭將承擔多大份額的英國債務等關鍵問題。他認爲，提出離譜的分家條款對任何人都沒有好處，但他低估了心理的衝擊。沒有人能預測到這會產生何種影響。

Nor is it obvious why Scotland will gain early and automatic entry into the EU. Other European states with their own separatist movements – notably Spain – have little incentive to agree to a quick deal. The only certainty is uncertainty, at a high cost to Scotland and the UK. The shift of deposits and money out of Scotland this week is a harbinger.

蘇格蘭爲何將能儘早和“自動”加入歐盟也令人費解。其他存在分裂運動的歐盟國家，特別是西班牙，沒有多少動力同意迅速達成蘇格蘭入盟協議。唯一確定的事就是不確定，這對蘇格蘭和英國都意味着高昂的代價。上週存款和資金流出蘇格蘭，就是一個兆頭。

There must be a better way. Britain needs a new political settlement that implements at home what it preaches in Europe: subsidiarity. For too long, the British government has imposed a “Whitehall-knows-best” policy on the nations and regions. More devolution is the answer, but not at any price. Mr Cameron and his London-based colleagues should tread carefully in the coming days. It is far from clear how England, the preponderant power, would fit into a federalised union in which Scotland enjoyed all political gifts short of independence.

必然存在更好的方式。英國需要新的政治安排，將其在歐洲鼓吹的輔助原則（subsidiarity，即中央權力機構應起輔助作用，只履行地方機構不能履行的職責——譯者注）應用到自己身上。太長時間以來，英國政府對各民族和各地區都實行“白廳最懂”政策。加大權力下放是解決方法，但不是不惜代價。未來幾天，卡梅倫和他的倫敦同僚們應該小心行事。在一個讓蘇格蘭享有除獨立以外的一切政治好處的聯邦制聯盟中，佔有優勢的英格蘭該如何擺正自己的位置，這一點還遠不清楚。

Everything turns on the vote on September 18. It is not too late to remind the Scots and the rest of the UK how much they have benefited from being British. Great Britain stands for an expansive and inclusive view of the world. The union is something precious, not a bauble to be cast aside. In a week’s time, the Scots can vote with a sense of ambition to build on those successes. Rather than retreat into tribalism, they can continue to be part of a nation rooted not just in history and culture but a common destiny which over three centuries has served all so well.

9月18日投票那一天，一切都會改變。我們應該提醒蘇格蘭人和其他地方的英國人，英國人的身份帶給了他們多少好處，現在提醒還不晚。大不列顛代表一種視野開闊、具有包容性的世界觀。英國這個聯盟是寶物，不是什麼可以隨便扔掉的小玩意。幾天後，蘇格蘭人就可以帶着續寫成功的豪情投票了。與其退回部落主義，他們可以繼續做聯合王國的一部分，這個國家不僅根源於歷史和文化，還根源於三個多世紀以來帶給所有人福祉的共同目標。