評論
打印
Scotland's referendum endgame
蘇格蘭公投的收官之戰(zhàn)
A war of attrition
消耗戰(zhàn)
The peculiar smallness of Scotland's independence debate
關于蘇格蘭獨立的辯論似乎太渺小了
RESEMBLING nothing so much as a pair of irritable golfers yelling at each other in the clubhouse bar, on August 25th the leaders of Scotland's pro- and anti-independence camps collided in the second of two televised debates. If passions are high as the referendum campaign enters its final leg—with unionists ahead in polls but wary of a late nationalist surge—this reflects the stakes. A “yes” vote on September 18th would terminate Britain's 307-year-old political union.
除了一對的脾氣暴躁的高爾夫球手在俱樂部對罵之外，恐怕再沒有任何場景能同八月二十五日的的電視辯論相媲美了。隨著公投進入最后關頭，民眾熱情高漲，與聯(lián)合主義者提前進行投票的同時，又在警惕著后期民族主義的激增—這種狀況反應了公投中各利益方的關系。9月18日的蘇格蘭獨立公投或許可能結束英國307年的的政治聯(lián)盟
Filter out the noisy interruptions, though, and both Alex Salmond, Scotland's nationalist premier, and Alistair Darling, the unionist former chancellor of the exchequer, make dry points. Neither lingered on the overall case for or against the union, though Mr Darling banged on about currency whenever he could. For much of the debate they tussled over domestic policy areas like health care and housing benefits. A contest between two starkly different futures for Britain came to resemble one over today's public services.
除卻令人惱怒的打斷，蘇格蘭民族黨領導人亞歷克斯·薩爾蒙德和身為聯(lián)合主義者的前財政大臣阿里斯泰爾·達林都分別直截了當?shù)靥岢鲎约褐鲝埖囊c。無論人民是在大氛圍下左右搖擺或者是明確支持抑或反對蘇格蘭獨立，達林先生都盡其所能隨時宣揚著英聯(lián)邦的貨幣政策。而雙方在辯論中就許多國內(nèi)政策問題諸如衛(wèi)生保健和住房福利打得如火如荼。這使得兩種截然不同的英國未來之間的較量逐漸向今日公共政策的改革靠攏。
Another recent debate involving lesser figures in Dalkeith, near Edinburgh, suggests why the campaigns are so keen to occupy this ground. The church where it was held contained a cross-section of the electorate: from teenagers to pensioners, some in tracksuits, others in collar and tie. From the altar, an actuarial “no” campaigner brandished charts depicting the risks of independence. They clapped. Then his “yes” opponent lamented “Scotland's plundered oil”. They clapped again. Many cheerily applauded both sides.
最近的另一項辯論涉及到在愛丁堡附近的Daikeith中一些并不重要的區(qū)域，并且說明公投運動為何如此熱衷取得這片區(qū)域的支持。那里的教區(qū)選民跨度頗大—從輕狂少年到耄耋老者，有工薪階層也有精英人士。在這里，當反對獨立的陣營剖析蘇格蘭獨立的種種風險的時候，人們會鼓掌表示贊同；當獨立主義者們宣揚著“蘇格蘭石油被英國掠奪”的時候，人們依舊鼓掌附和以表支持。這其中很多人都搖擺不定猶疑不決。
The latest Scottish Social Attitudes survey suggests that about one-third of Scots are committed to independence and another third think devolution need go no farther than it has already. The referendum will be decided by the rest—pragmatists who would prefer greater autonomy without quitting the United Kingdom altogether. Wise to this, the two sides have tried to convey that this is more-or-less what voting for them would achieve in practice, while seeking to push the other lot off the “devo max” territory. Hence the debate's apparent smallness.
最新的關于蘇格蘭社會態(tài)度的調(diào)查顯示，約有三分之一的蘇格蘭人致力于獨立；另外三分之一的蘇格蘭人認為維持如今的自治水平，不必走得更遠 。蘇格蘭公投將由那些想要得到更大自主權而不是脫離英聯(lián)邦的實用主義者一錘定音。對于此種狀態(tài)，明確的做法是，兩大陣營都在試圖傳達著一個訊息—這些實用主義者通過自己的投票或多或少會實現(xiàn)什么，并且同時尋求促使其他人脫離“放權最大”的舒適區(qū)域。因此，辯論相比起來就是顯而易見的渺小。
The three main unionist parties—Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—have each published proposals for further devolution. The Tory report, published in June, was the most striking: a party that has long stood for political centralisation offered Edinburgh full control of income tax. And the nationalist government has alighted on similar ground from the opposite side. Last November it published a 670-page manifesto insisting that an independent Scotland could share the pound, stay in the EU and remain closely integrated with the rest of Britain. Over the next few weeks campaigners from both camps will assure voters that their particular brand of semi-detachedness holds the solution to their day-to-day gripes.
聯(lián)合主義的三大主要黨派—工黨、自由民主黨和保守黨，已經(jīng)分別就進一步放權發(fā)出聲明。六月發(fā)布的保守黨的報告最引人注目---即主張長期保留愛丁堡對所得稅的完全控制的政治權力。而蘇格蘭政府也在相反的方面化解了窘境—在其去年十一月出版的670頁的宣言中，獨立的蘇格蘭可以繼續(xù)享用英鎊，留在歐盟并密切保持其與英國其他部分的整合。在接下來的幾個星期，兩個陣營的活動家們?yōu)榱舜_保選民數(shù)量，他們向投票者承諾，兩大陣營可以在盡其所能來幫助選民解決日常困擾。
This is remarkable, and lamentable. A victory for the nationalists would send tremors far beyond Scotland. It would trigger calls for David Cameron, the Conservative prime minister, to resign. It would change the arithmetic, and quite possibly the outcome, of next year's general election. It would embolden separatists in Spain, Belgium and elsewhere. The difference between the campaigns' pitches to voters may be relatively modest, but that between a “yes” and a “no” is vast.
結果顯著卻又可悲的。民族主義者的勝利所帶來的震顫要遠遠超出蘇格蘭的范圍。這或?qū)⒂|發(fā)保守黨首相卡梅倫的辭職，并且也會改變立法，甚至讓明年的大選變數(shù)重重。并且這也將鼓勵西班牙、比利時以及其他地方分離分裂主義者。雖然選民與陣營之間的差異是溫和的，但是在“是”與“否”之間，差異是巨大的。
