评论
打印
Scotland's referendum endgame
苏格兰公投的收官之战
A war of attrition
消耗战
The peculiar smallness of Scotland's independence debate
关于苏格兰独立的辩论似乎太渺小了
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.
除了一对的脾气暴躁的高尔夫球手在俱乐部对骂之外，恐怕再没有任何场景能同八月二十五日的的电视辩论相媲美了。随着公投进入最后关头，民众热情高涨，与联合主义者提前进行投票的同时，又在警惕着后期民族主义的激增—这种状况反应了公投中各利益方的关系。9月18日的苏格兰独立公投或许可能结束英国307年的的政治联盟
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.
除却令人恼怒的打断，苏格兰民族党领导人亚历克斯·萨尔蒙德和身为联合主义者的前财政大臣阿里斯泰尔·达林都分别直截了当地提出自己主张的要点。无论人民是在大氛围下左右摇摆或者是明确支持抑或反对苏格兰独立，达林先生都尽其所能随时宣扬着英联邦的货币政策。而双方在辩论中就许多国内政策问题诸如卫生保健和住房福利打得如火如荼。这使得两种截然不同的英国未来之间的较量逐渐向今日公共政策的改革靠拢。
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.
最近的另一项辩论涉及到在爱丁堡附近的Daikeith中一些并不重要的区域，并且说明公投运动为何如此热衷取得这片区域的支持。那里的教区选民跨度颇大—从轻狂少年到耄耋老者，有工薪阶层也有精英人士。在这里，当反对独立的阵营剖析苏格兰独立的种种风险的时候，人们会鼓掌表示赞同；当独立主义者们宣扬着“苏格兰石油被英国掠夺”的时候，人们依旧鼓掌附和以表支持。这其中很多人都摇摆不定犹疑不决。
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.
最新的关于苏格兰社会态度的调查显示，约有三分之一的苏格兰人致力于独立；另外三分之一的苏格兰人认为维持如今的自治水平，不必走得更远 。苏格兰公投将由那些想要得到更大自主权而不是脱离英联邦的实用主义者一锤定音。对于此种状态，明确的做法是，两大阵营都在试图传达着一个讯息—这些实用主义者通过自己的投票或多或少会实现什么，并且同时寻求促使其他人脱离“放权最大”的舒适区域。因此，辩论相比起来就是显而易见的渺小。
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.
联合主义的三大主要党派—工党、自由民主党和保守党，已经分别就进一步放权发出声明。六月发布的保守党的报告最引人注目---即主张长期保留爱丁堡对所得税的完全控制的政治权力。而苏格兰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页的宣言中，独立的苏格兰可以继续享用英镑，留在欧盟并密切保持其与英国其他部分的整合。在接下来的几个星期，两个阵营的活动家们为了确保选民数量，他们向投票者承诺，两大阵营可以在尽其所能来帮助选民解决日常困扰。
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.
结果显著却又可悲的。民族主义者的胜利所带来的震颤要远远超出苏格兰的范围。这或将触发保守党首相卡梅伦的辞职，并且也会改变立法，甚至让明年的大选变数重重。并且这也将鼓励西班牙、比利时以及其他地方分离分裂主义者。虽然选民与阵营之间的差异是温和的，但是在“是”与“否”之间，差异是巨大的。
