蘇格蘭一波未平 又輪到英格蘭搞分裂了

A week ago Scotland’s nationalists were trying to break up Britain. Now, it is the turn of England’s Tories. In the wake of Alex Salmond’s referendum defeat, David Cameron’s Conservatives have set about handing the leader of the Scottish National party the victory denied him by Scotland’s voters. Now there is a rum thought: Mr Salmond lost the battle but the English may yet concede the war.

本月早些時候，蘇格蘭的民族主義者試圖分裂英國。如今輪到英格蘭的保守黨這麼幹了。蘇格蘭選民的意志，讓蘇格蘭民族黨(SNP)領導人亞歷克斯•薩爾蒙德(Alex Salmond)在公投中失敗了，然而戴維•卡梅倫(David Cameron)的保守黨似乎要幫助他取得獨立勝利。如今有一種奇怪的看法：薩爾蒙德輸掉了一場戰鬥，但英格蘭人可能輸掉整場戰爭。

In a state of some excitement, perhaps because it is the autumn party conference season, the Tories are clamouring for “English votes for English laws”. The price for Scots of more devolution, they say, must be a diminished role for their MPs at Westminster.

保守黨正在宣揚“英格蘭人爲英格蘭法律投票”——他們有些興奮，或許是因爲秋季會期的到來。他們說，既然蘇格蘭要獲得更多自治權，蘇格蘭議員在英國議會的地位就必須相應削弱。

This is partly about electioneering. The Tories have only one MP in Scotland; Labour has 40. Flying the English flag could paint the opposition into a corner at next year’s general election. Mr Cameron also wants to guard his flank against rightwing English nationalists.

他們這樣說，部分原因是爲了競選。保守黨在蘇格蘭只有1名議員，工黨(Labour)有40名。高舉英格蘭旗幟，就有可能在明年大選中將在野的工黨逼入絕境。卡梅倫還希望防備英格蘭右翼民族主義者從側面攻擊他。

On the face of it, the prime minister has a case. The closer Scotland gets to home rule, the odder it seems for its MPs to vote on English affairs. The snag, however, with deceptively simple solutions to complex problems, is that they are, well, deceptive.

表面上看，首相這樣做有一定道理。蘇格蘭越接近實現自治，蘇格蘭議員就英格蘭事務投票就越顯得奇怪。然而，用貌似簡單的方法解決複雜問題是行不通的，這些方法帶有欺騙性。

The exclusion of Scottish MPs from most of the business of the House of Commons would amount to English secession by another name. It would also substitute a shuffling of power between politicians – English MPs get more, the Scots less – for the urgent task of dispersing authority within England. Creating a group of second-class legislators does nothing to loosen Whitehall’s deadening grip over the great cities and shires of England.

不讓蘇格蘭議員參與下議院(House of Commons)大多數事務，將意味着另一種名義上的分裂。而且，這將用政客之間的權力再分配（英格蘭議員得到更多權力，蘇格蘭議員得到更少），代替向英格蘭放權這項迫在眉睫的任務。製造一羣二等議員無助於讓白廳放鬆對英格蘭大城市和郡的牢牢把控。

The neat answer would be a federal system. Goodness knows, Britain needs to decentralise power by returning to city mayors and councils authority to make choices about local taxes and ser­vices. The facts of the union, unfortunately, do not match the political theory textbooks. England’s overwhelming economic and political dominance among the UK’s four nations rules out a classic federation. For the union to work, its constitutional arrangements must serve as a counterweight to English hegemony. This means England has to be generous about the voice afforded to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Generations of English politicians have wrestled with this question and concluded, rightly, that a division of power perfectly calibrated to reflect respective populations or economic weights would be unworkable.

一個簡單的方案是，實行聯邦制。天哪，英國居然得通過恢復市長及市政廳在地方稅收和服務方面的決策權，來分散中央集權。遺憾的是，聯合王國的現實情況並不符合政治理論教科書上有關建立聯邦制的學說。在英國的四個地區中，英格蘭在經濟和政治上佔據顯著的主導地位，使得典型的聯邦制在英國不可行。這樣的聯盟要成功，其憲制就必須對英格蘭的主導地位起到牽制。這意味着英格蘭在給予蘇格蘭、威爾士和北愛話語權方面必須慷慨一些。幾代英格蘭政治家都曾努力解決這個問題，最後得出了一個正確的結論，那就是：精確地依據各個民族的人口或經濟權重來分配權力是行不通的。

Nor, anyway, is it possible to draw a neat line between legislation that is uniquely English and laws that affect Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The deep integration of public policy and finances across the nations means there are precious few decisions taken at Westminster that do not have an impact throughout the UK.

同樣，也很難清晰地區分哪些法律是隻影響英格蘭的，哪些是影響蘇格蘭、威爾士和北愛爾蘭的。英國四個地區在公共政策和財政方面的深度一體化，意味着英國議會所做的決策中，只有極少一部分不是影響整個英國的。

When MPs voted for university tuition fees in England, it changed fundamentally the structure of education funding in the other nations. William Gladstone grappled with this during the 19th-century debates about Irish home rule. Even in a much less complex world, he decided the circle could not be squared.

議員們就英格蘭大學學費做出的投票，也會深刻改變英國其他地區的教育經費結構。威廉•格拉德斯通(William Gladstone)在19世紀有關愛爾蘭自治的辯論中就曾面對過這個問題。即便當時的世界比現在簡單得多，他最終仍然得出這種方法行不通的結論。

Follow the logic of English votes for English laws and it leads to an English parliament and government. Such would be the dominance of these English institutions that the Commons would be reduced to a foreign policy talking shop. Even then, an English parliament might want to choose a different relationship with, say, the EU than the other nations. And once Westminster loses the power to raise UK-wide taxes, the union will be by any measure dead.

按照“英格蘭人爲英格蘭法律投票”的邏輯，就有必要建立英格蘭議會和英格蘭政府。這些英格蘭機構將擁有主導地位，而下議院將淪爲對外政策的清談場所。這樣一個英格蘭議會還可能想和歐盟(EU)間保持一種不同於英國其他地區的關係。而一旦英國議會失去了在整個英國徵稅的權力，聯合王國將名存實亡。

The noise about “unfairness” is in inverse proportion to a more prosaic reality. There have been only a handful of occasions in recent decades when Scottish MPs have been “swing” voters. On at least two of them, during Tony Blair’s premiership, these MPs were voting with a government that had a majority in England. As for the myth that Labour invariably relies on Scotland for a majority at Westminster, the electoral facts show it is just that – a myth.

叫嚷“不公平”的聒噪與相對平淡的現實情況形成了反差。近幾十年來，蘇格蘭議員成爲關鍵的“搖擺”投票人的情況只有寥寥數例。其中至少有兩次——都在託尼•布萊爾(Tony Blair)擔任首相期間——這些蘇格蘭議員投票支持了這個在英格蘭擁有多數的政府。至於所謂工黨向來依靠蘇格蘭才能在英國議會中佔多數的傳說，選舉事實表明這只是個“傳說”而已。

Home rule in Scotland does raise important questions about the governance of the rest of the UK. There is a legitimate debate to be had about if and when Scottish MPs should step back from voting at Westminster. There will also be room for scrutiny of the Barnett funding formula for public spending in Scotland once Edinburgh gains more fiscal autonomy.

蘇格蘭地方自治確實引發了關於英國其他地區如何治理的重要問題。對於蘇格蘭議員在英國議會的投票權是否以及何時應該削弱，確實有必要開展一場合理辯論。此外，如果愛丁堡在財政上獲得更多自主權，在蘇格蘭公共開支方面實行的巴聶特算式(the Barnett Formula)也有待檢討。

But the prior question is whether England wants a parliament that represents all four nations of the union? If the answer is yes, then it cannot expect a formulaic English votes for English laws.

不過，首要的問題是英格蘭是否想要一個代表聯合王國所有四個地區的議會？如果這個問題的答案是肯定的，英格蘭就不能指望出現“英格蘭人爲英格蘭法律投票”這種公式化結果。

The strength of Britain’s unwritten constitution has lain in its capacity to accommodate anomalies and contradictions. If tidy English minds now redefine “fairness” as perfect symmetry between Scotland and England, the unavoidable consequence will be the break-up of the union. Mr Salmond, of course, is rubbing his hands at the prospect.

大不列顛不成文憲法的優點在於它包容非常規和矛盾事物的能力。如果英格蘭有智之士將“公平”重新定義爲蘇格蘭和英格蘭的絕對平等，這將不可避免地導致聯合王國的解體。當然，薩爾蒙德對此滿懷期待。