蘇格蘭要進行第二次獨立公投?

This month, in a plebiscite on Catalan independence, four out of five voters opted to secede from Spain. The vote was symbolic: Madrid does not recognise Catalans’ sovereignty or their legal right to leave the Spanish state. Artur Mas, the Catalan president, is under criminal investigation for holding the poll. The Spanish government says his plan for independence in 2016 is “a road to nowhere”.

最近，在加泰羅尼亞的獨立公投上，五分之四的選民贊成脫離西班牙。這場投票只是象徵性的：西班牙政府並不承認加泰羅尼亞的主權，也不承認該地區人民擁有脫離西班牙的法律權利。該自治區主席阿圖爾•馬斯(Artur Mas)因舉行獨立公投面臨刑事調查。西班牙政府稱，馬斯尋求在2016年獨立的計劃是“一條絕路”。

We do things differently in Britain. We have real referendums on independence, where even the defeated parties end up as winners. On September 18, 55 per cent of Scots voted against seceding from the UK in a referendum whose question, timing and franchise were shaped by the Scottish government. By then, dizzied by the yeasty nationalists, the leaders of the main UK parties had vowed that a No vote would still lead to devolution of “extensive new powers” to Edinburgh. This week, a cross-party group tasked with turning that vague promise into reality issued its recommendations. The conclusion of the commission led by Lord Smith of Kelvinmeans that Scotland should soon become one of the most powerful devolved nations in the world.

在英國，我們處理事情的方式不同。我們舉行了真正的獨立公投，而即使是被擊敗的黨派，最後也成爲了贏家。9月18日，在一場問題、時機和投票權都掌握在蘇格蘭政府手中的全民公投中，55%的蘇格蘭人選擇留在英國。公投舉行之時，被煽風點火的民族主義者搞得頭暈腦脹的英國主要政黨的領袖們誓言，如果蘇格蘭選擇不獨立，將向蘇格蘭下放“廣泛的新權力”。最近，負責落實這個模糊承諾的跨黨派團體發表了建議。由史密斯勳爵(Lord Smith of Kelvin)領導的委員會做出的結論意味着，蘇格蘭很快將成爲世界上得到最多放權的民族地區之一。

After a rushed process described by close observers as “ghastly”, “awful” and nearly ruined by “halfwits”, the group has proposed sweeping reforms. Most important are those to do with tax and spending. Under the Smith deal, Scotland would raise almost 40 per cent of its own taxes (up from less than 10 per cent) and control about half of the spending in the country. These changes are substantial. But it is naive to think they form Scotland’s final settlement.

密切觀察這一進程的人士稱，委員會倉促的決議過程“令人反感”、“糟透了”，幾乎被“白癡”毀了。委員會提出了全面改革方案，其中最重要的是與稅收和公共支出相關的改革。根據史密斯提出的方案，蘇格蘭將有權徵收本地區近40%的稅（目前這個比例低於10%）並控制大約一半的公共支出。這些改變具有實質意義，但如果認爲它們將一勞永逸地解決蘇格蘭問題，就太天真了。

Its champions believe that the Smith report means Scottish politics can return to normal. Since 2007, when the Scottish National party took charge of the devolved parliament, constitutional questions – culminating in the independence referendum – have defined politics north of the border. As if plagued by status anxiety, the SNP has agonised over what it does not have while neglecting what it has. Only independence, it argues, can activate Scotland’s latent social democracy. The party’s opponents now argue that Holyrood will soon have the powers to redistribute income and introduce benefits. If the SNP wants to fund munificent statism, they imply, it will need to persuade Scots to foot the bill. Unionists want to end the SNP’s double life as both a party of protest and a party of power.

改革方案的捍衛者認爲，史密斯報告意味着蘇格蘭政治將恢復常態。2007年蘇格蘭民族黨(Scottish National Party，簡稱SNP)入主蘇格蘭議會後，憲法問題成了蘇格蘭政治的中心，最終帶來獨立公投。就像一個“地位焦慮症”患者，蘇格蘭民族黨一直對自己沒有的東西耿耿於懷，而對自己擁有的東西視而不見。該黨提出，只有獨立才能激活蘇格蘭內在的社會民主主義。該黨的反對者現在主張，蘇格蘭議會很快就會擁有收入再分配和引入福利的權力。他們暗示，如果蘇格蘭民族黨想搞福利優厚的國家主義，就需要說服蘇格蘭人爲此買單。統一派想要終結蘇格蘭民族黨既做抗議黨、又是執政黨的雙重身份。

Scotland would certainly benefit from having its governing party govern. Holyrood politics is cozily consensual. Cults have more genuine disputes. The few self-reflective nationalists admit that their party is incurious about policy. There is no proper debate in Scotland about how to improve its awful public health or how the widest educational inequalities in the UK could be narrowed. Scotland already controls these areas. A moratorium on independence talk would give Holyrood the room to take on entrenched problems.

蘇格蘭肯定能獲益於一個當家作主的執政黨。目前蘇格蘭議會政治基本上是一團和氣的共識政治。就連極端宗教團體內部的意見分歧也比它更加真實一些。一些自我反思的民族主義者承認，他們的政黨對政策毫不關心。對於如何改善糟糕的公共衛生，如何縮小整個聯合王國範圍最嚴重的教育不平等，蘇格蘭沒有展開認真的辯論。蘇格蘭已經控制這些領域。暫緩關於蘇格蘭獨立的討論，將讓蘇格蘭議會騰出精力應對一些根深蒂固的問題。

However, the Smith commission is only a scene in the denouement of Scotland’s modern history. It will not end the tension between London and Edinburgh. For a start, there are thorny issues arising from the Smith recommendations. Universal credit, the UK’s foundering flagship welfare policy, will be run from Westminster and may work against Scottish efforts to reduce unemployment. Because of the tax powers still vested in London, Holyrood will not be able to redistribute income to the bottom fifth of Scottish earners. The “fiscal framework” is subject to negotiation; changes to the grant given to Scotland may cause resentment. And then there is the Conservative opposition to Scottish MPs voting on how income taxes are imposed in the rest of the UK.

然而，史密斯委員會只是蘇格蘭現代史結局的一段情節。它不會結束倫敦和愛丁堡之間的緊張關係。首先，史密斯的建議將引發一些棘手的問題。聯合王國議會將運行“統一福利”(Universal credit)——英國問題多多的旗艦福利政策，這可能不利於蘇格蘭減少失業的努力。由於稅收權力仍歸倫敦，蘇格蘭議會將無法對蘇格蘭收入分佈最底層五分之一的人羣重新分配收入。“財政框架”還需要經過談判，對蘇格蘭撥款的變化可能會引起不滿。此外，英國保守黨反對蘇格蘭議員參與對英國其他地區徵稅事務的投票。

The SNP will still be able to protest. Governing is the party’s MacGuffin: the aptly named literary device that serves no purpose other than as a trigger for the plot, in this case independence. The nationalist reaction to the Smith report was laughably typical. Having signed up to the cross-party agreement at 7pm on Wednesday, it had briefed against it by 9pm. On Thursday came the predictable complaints that Smith did not go far enough. It never does. It never will.

蘇格蘭民族黨仍能抗爭。執政是該黨的“麥高芬”(MacGuffin)：一種恰當命名的文學手法，其唯一作用就是推動情節（蘇格蘭獨立事業）發展。民族主義者對史密斯報告的反應實在可笑。上週三晚7點簽署了跨黨派協議後，當晚9點該黨就舉行反對該協議的吹風會。不出所料，上週四開始有人抱怨史密斯走得不夠遠。放權從來都是不夠遠的，而且永遠不會夠遠。

And why would the SNP change? The party has gone from an esoteric pursuit to within 400,000 votes of independence in a generation. There has been no reflection on why they lost in September because they do not believe that assessment of the result.

再說，蘇格蘭民族黨爲什麼要改變？該黨在開始時只是少數人的追求，但在一代人時間內已將統獨票數之差縮小到40萬票以下。他們沒有對9月份公投失敗進行反省，因爲他們不相信對公投結果的那種評估。

The party’s membership has quadrupled. The SNP conference had the tenor of a revivalist meeting. If Jim Murphy wins the Scottish Labour leadership election next month, he would offer stronger opposition to the nationalists. But he is one man. A strong SNP performance in the 2015 UK general election, and/or the 2016 Scottish elections, will encourage the nationalists to think they have a mandate for even more devolution: “Smith plus”.

蘇格蘭民族黨的黨員已翻了兩番，該黨大會的基調爲復興。如果吉姆•墨菲(Jim Murphy)下月贏得蘇格蘭工黨領導人選舉，他會成爲針對民族主義者的更強大反對派。但他只是一個人。蘇格蘭民族黨如果在2015年英國大選，及/或2016年蘇格蘭選舉中有強勁表現，將鼓勵民族主義者相信他們有資格爭取更多權力下放：“史密斯建議增強版”。

In September, Scotland rejected independence but affirmed that its participation in the union is voluntary and contingent. British identity is dissolving in the slow ebb of empire. The referendum suggests that the union will survive so long as Scots feel they are better off within it. In spite of the nationalists’ disingenuity, most still believe in that practical rationale. But this could change if the Conservatives retain power in May and hold an EU referendum. If Britain were then to choose to leave the EU, Scotland would probably demand the right to a second independence vote.

蘇格蘭在9月份拒絕了獨立，但確認了自己是自願及有條件加入聯盟的。隨着大英帝國的衰落，對英國的認同感已逐漸消解。獨立公投的結果暗示，只有在蘇格蘭人覺得自己留在聯盟內更划算的情況下，聯盟纔會存續。儘管民族主義者不老實，但多數人仍相信這一現實的邏輯。但如果保守黨在明年5月份守住權力，並舉行是否脫離歐盟(EU)的全民公投，這種情況可能會發生改變。如果到時候英國選擇離開歐盟，蘇格蘭很可能會要求舉行第二次獨立公投。

The Smith commission was not able to change the increasingly transactional – and therefore fragile – Anglo-Scottish relationship. Paradoxically, the most important news for the future of Scotland this week had little to do with constitutions. The oil price, upon which nationalist hopes for a viable economy rest, continues to fall. Its volatility is a reminder that Scotland’s future will be determined by global events as well as domestic politics.

史密斯委員會無法改變這種日趨交易性的——因而脆弱的——盎格魯-蘇格蘭關係。矛盾的是，上週對蘇格蘭未來最重要的消息與憲法沒什麼關係。民族主義者將蘇格蘭經濟的未來寄望於石油價格，然而油價持續下跌。這種波動性是個提醒：蘇格蘭的未來除了取決於國內政治外，還將受到全球事件影響。

Pragmatism won in September and it remains the main reason among Scots for staying in the UK. Devolution can do so only much to alter that fact; Lord Smith went with the flow of history rather than arresting it.

務實主義贏得了9月公投，而且仍是蘇格蘭留在英國的主要原因。權力下放對這一事實能夠做出的變更是有限度的。史密斯勳爵順應了歷史潮流，而沒有阻礙它。