苏格兰一波未平 又轮到英格兰搞分裂了

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.

本月早些时候，苏格兰的民族主义者试图分裂英国。如今轮到英格兰的保守党这么干了。苏格兰选民的意志，让苏格兰民族党(SNP)领导人亚历克斯•萨尔蒙德(Alex Salmond)在公投中失败了，然而戴维•卡梅伦(David Cameron)的保守党似乎要帮助他取得独立胜利。如今有一种奇怪的看法：萨尔蒙德输掉了一场战斗，但英格兰人可能输掉整场战争。

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.

保守党正在宣扬“英格兰人为英格兰法律投票”——他们有些兴奋，或许是因为秋季会期的到来。他们说，既然苏格兰要获得更多自治权，苏格兰议员在英国议会的地位就必须相应削弱。

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.

他们这样说，部分原因是为了竞选。保守党在苏格兰只有1名议员，工党(Labour)有40名。高举英格兰旗帜，就有可能在明年大选中将在野的工党逼入绝境。卡梅伦还希望防备英格兰右翼民族主义者从侧面攻击他。

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，首相这样做有一定道理。苏格兰越接近实现自治，苏格兰议员就英格兰事务投票就越显得奇怪。然而，用貌似简单的方法解决复杂问题是行不通的，这些方法带有欺骗性。

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.

不让苏格兰议员参与下议院(House of Commons)大多数事务，将意味着另一种名义上的分裂。而且，这将用政客之间的权力再分配（英格兰议员得到更多权力，苏格兰议员得到更少），代替向英格兰放权这项迫在眉睫的任务。制造一群二等议员无助于让白厅放松对英格兰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.

一个简单的方案是，实行联邦制。天哪，英国居然得通过恢复市长及市政厅在地方税收和服务方面的决策权，来分散中央集权。遗憾的是，联合王国的现实情况并不符合政治理论教科书上有关建立联邦制的学说。在英国的四个地区中，英格兰在经济和政治上占据显著的主导地位，使得典型的联邦制在英国不可行。这样的联盟要成功，其宪制就必须对英格兰的主导地位起到牵制。这意味着英格兰在给予苏格兰、威尔士和北爱话语权方面必须慷慨一些。几代英格兰政治家都曾努力解决这个问题，最后得出了一个正确的结论，那就是：精确地依据各个民族的人口或经济权重来分配权力是行不通的。

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.

同样，也很难清晰地区分哪些法律是只影响英格兰的，哪些是影响苏格兰、威尔士和北爱尔兰的。英国四个地区在公共政策和财政方面的深度一体化，意味着英国议会所做的决策中，只有极少一部分不是影响整个英国的。

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.

议员们就英格兰大学学费做出的投票，也会深刻改变英国其他地区的教育经费结构。威廉•格拉德斯通(William Gladstone)在19世纪有关爱尔兰自治的辩论中就曾面对过这个问题。即便当时的世界比现在简单得多，他最终仍然得出这种方法行不通的结论。

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“英格兰人为英格兰法律投票”的逻辑，就有必要建立英格兰议会和英格兰政府。这些英格兰机构将拥有主导地位，而下议院将沦为对外政策的清谈场所。这样一个英格兰议会还可能想和欧盟(EU)间保持一种不同于英国其他地区的关系。而一旦英国议会失去了在整个英国征税的权力，联合王国将名存实亡。

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”的聒噪与相对平淡的现实情况形成了反差。近几十年来，苏格兰议员成为关键的“摇摆”投票人的情况只有寥寥数例。其中至少有两次——都在托尼•布莱尔(Tony Blair)担任首相期间——这些苏格兰议员投票支持了这个在英格兰拥有多数的政府。至于所谓工党向来依靠苏格兰才能在英国议会中占多数的传说，选举事实表明这只是个“传说”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.

苏格兰地方自治确实引发了关于英国其他地区如何治理的重要问题。对于苏格兰议员在英国议会的投票权是否以及何时应该削弱，确实有必要开展一场合理辩论。此外，如果爱丁堡在财政上获得更多自主权，在苏格兰公共开支方面实行的巴聂特算式(the Barnett Formula)也有待检讨。

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.

不过，首要的问题是英格兰是否想要一个代表联合王国所有四个地区的议会？如果这个问题的答案是肯定的，英格兰就不能指望出现“英格兰人为英格兰法律投票”这种公式化结果。

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.

大不列颠不成文宪法的优点在于它包容非常规和矛盾事物的能力。如果英格兰有智之士将“公平”重新定义为苏格兰和英格兰的绝对平等，这将不可避免地导致联合王国的解体。当然，萨尔蒙德对此满怀期待。