苏格兰公投 文明的统独之争

It is harder than you might think to explain in Chinese the background to Scotland’s independence debate, not least because the three English words “nation”, “country” and “state” are in Mandarin all generally translated as a single word: guojia.

用中文解释苏格兰独立辩论的背景或许会比你以为的更难，这主要是因为在中文中，nation（国家，民族）、country（国家）和state（国家，政府）这三个词都被笼统地翻译为同一个词：“国家”。

As an exiled Scot, I had to wrestle with this lack of linguistic precision many times while living in China during the 1990s and 2000s. Why, friends and acquaintances asked, was Scotland considered a nation when it was part of the highly centralised UK state? Why did it in 1999 suddenly acquire a parliament after three centuries without one? And – of greatest interest to Beijing cab drivers – why did it have a national football team but compete in the Olympics as part of Great Britain?

我是一个背井离乡的苏格兰人，在上世纪90年代至本世纪头十年、我在中国生活的那些年里，我多次遇到无法用中文精确表述的麻烦。朋友与相识的人那时会问我，苏格兰为何既被视为一个国家(nation)、同时又属于高度集权的英国？之前的3个世纪里都没有的苏格兰议会，为何在1999年忽然成立了？而北京的出租车司机最感兴趣的问题是，苏格兰为何有自己的国家足球队，但又作为大不列颠国家队的一部分参加奥运会？

But the hardest thing for many of my Chinese friends to understand was how Scottish nationalism could be an accepted part of the British political landscape. In China, a state founded on the carcass of the Qing Dynasty in 1912, independence movements are anathema. Any “splittism” in Tibet or western Xinjiang is ruthlessly crushed and Taiwan’s de facto independence only grudgingly granted temporary toleration.

不过，我的许多中国朋友们那时最难以理解的是，苏格兰民族主义为何居然能成为英国政治图景中一个可接受的组成部分？中国是在1912年被推翻的清朝的残骸上建立起来的，独立运动在这个国家是个禁忌。西藏、新疆的“分裂主义”都受到无情地镇压，台湾事实上的独立也只不过被勉强、暂时地容忍下来。

The UK’s response to Scottish splittism is very different, as I have come to appreciate since returning to the land of my youth to be the FT’s Scotland correspondent after nearly two decades in east Asia. Here, the process is firmly democratic and almost entirely peaceful. All sides of the debate accept that Scotland’s future should be decided by the will of its people. Where other states confronted by separatism send in the tanks, the UK – to its great credit – hits back with promises of more devolved powers and colourful leaflets talking up the benefits of union.

在东亚待了近20年之后，我返回故土、担任英国《金融时报》驻苏格兰记者，我发现，英国对苏格兰分裂主义的应对方式大不相同。在这里，程序是绝对民主、且近乎完全和平的。参与辩论的各派都认同一点：苏格兰的未来应该由苏格兰人民的意志决定。其他面临分裂主义问题的国家出动的是坦克，而值得赞赏的是，英国反击分裂主义的方式是承诺加大权力下放，制作各种五颜六色的小册子、宣传联盟的好处。

That is not to say that Scotland’s debate has been wholly admirable – the quality has been patchy, a flowering of respectful and rational discussion often drowned out by the ranting and spinning of professional politicians and partisan media. Though anti-English attitudes have been mercifully absent from the mainstream debate, a nasty nationalist fringe has besmirched some exchanges on social media and street corners.

这并不是说苏格兰的辩论完全没有缺点——辩论质量一般，严肃、理性的讨论往往被职业政客和偏袒某一党派的媒体的夸夸其谈所淹没。尽管幸运的是，反英格兰情绪没有出现在主流辩论中，但一种龌龊的民族主义极端思想污染了社交媒体和坊间的某些谈话。

But it is worth stepping back for a moment. The possible secession of a third of the landmass and 8 per cent of the population of a major power is being addressed through overwhelmingly peaceful, free and often even friendly debate. To appreciate how precious that is, you need only look as far as Ukraine, where March’s disputed referendum opened the way for Russian annexation of Crimea and bloody battles have raged between government troops and separatists in border regions. Participants in Scotland’s debate might risk insults and – in the case of one pro-union MP – an egging but nobody is shooting them or shelling their villages.

但应该退后一步来看。三分之一国土、8%人口可能从一个大国分裂出去，这个问题正在通过令人吃惊的和平、自由、很多时候甚至友好的辩论得到讨论。要理解这有多么难得，你只用看看乌克兰——3月举行的有争议的公投，导致俄罗斯吞并克里米亚、政府武装和分裂主义者在边境地区爆发血腥战斗。参与苏格兰独立辩论者或许面临受到辱骂的风险，就一位支持维持联盟的议员而言，还面临被砸鸡蛋的风险，但没有人会对他们开枪，或炮轰他们的村庄。

One result of this more civilised atmosphere is to lower the stakes of the dispute. Scottish nationalists cannot credibly claim their nation is being oppressed. The version of independence on offer by the Scottish National party is thus a strikingly moderate one, espousing civic values rather than ethnic identity and stressing continuing close links with the remaining UK. An independent Scotland would seek to remain firmly within the European Union, with its commitment to the free movement of people and trade.

这种更加文明的氛围的结果之一，是降低了争论所涉及的利害。苏格兰民族主义者无法令人信服地宣称，他们的民族受到压迫。因此，苏格兰民族党(SNP)提出的独立主张非常温和，信奉公民价值观，而不是民族认同，强调继续与英国其余部分保持紧密联系。独立后的苏格兰将谋求坚决留在欧盟(EU)内，承诺允许人员自由流动和自由贸易。

This suggests Scotland would not be independent in the sense my Chinese friends might understand the word. There would be only a difference of degree between independence and a future as a devolved part of the UK. Scotland would be tightly tied to the economy of the remaining UK and deeply enmeshed in the greater European whole. Some pro-union politicians warn darkly that independence would undermine the security of the west and comfort its enemies, but it seems much more likely that the European order would quickly adjust to the appearance of an independent Scotland ready to make its own contribution to common security.

这意味着苏格兰的独立，或许会跟我的中国朋友们理解的独立不一样。独立跟作为英国的享有一定自治权的一部分，两者只有程度的差别。苏格兰经济将与英国其余地区紧密联系在一起，并将深深融入欧盟整体。一些支持联盟的政客阴暗地警告称，独立将破坏西方的安全，让敌人如意，但可能性大得多的情况是，欧洲的秩序将迅速根据新独立的苏格兰做出调整，独立后的苏格兰将乐于对共同安全做出自己的贡献。

It is also striking how willing Scotland’s pro-independence campaign is to embrace a future in which national autonomy is limited, so long as it is the Scots who can decide what aspects of their sovereignty to share or pool.

苏格兰支持独立的阵营愿意接受一种国家自治权有限的未来，只要分享和共用哪些主权是由苏格兰人决定，这一点也令人惊异。

Indeed I would like to think that Scotland’s independence referendum, whatever the result, might eventually be seen as only one step in a much longer and broader process of change in Europe away from the automatic assumption that the fundamental unit of political affairs is the traditional sovereign nation state.

事实上，我倒认为，欧洲正在经历一种更长远、更广泛的变化进程，摆脱一种理所当然的观念，即政治事务的基本单位为传统主权民族国家，苏格兰的独立公投（无论其结果如何）或许最终会被视为这一进程中的一步。

We should not be afraid of such change. The nation state is after all only a social construct, in its current conception generally dated to the mid-17th century. As the examples of Ukraine or Tibet suggest, democracy and the rule of law are much more likely to promote human happiness than allegiance to a particular flag or set of borders.

我们不应害怕这样的改变。民族国家毕竟只是一种社会观念，按照其目前定义，大体上可追溯至17世纪中期。如乌克兰和西藏的例子所示，民主和法治能够促进人类福祉的可能性，大大高于效忠某面特定旗帜或版图的界线所能做到的。

I will vote on September 18, but my choice will not be decided by any particular passion for statehood, British or Scottish. In my ideal world, nation states would actually fade in importance and emphasis shift to a wider range of political units that would allow genuinely global co-operation on issues such as climate change and truly local decision-making for individual communities.

我会在9月18日那天投票，但我的选择将不会由我对某个国家（无论是英国还是苏格兰）的热爱所决定。在我看来，在理想的世界中，民族国家事实上会越来越不重要，重心将转移到范围更广的政治单位上，这会使气候变化等问题能够实现真正的全球合作，让每个社会能够真正实现本地事务本地决策。

Such a future is very far off, of course. In the meantime we can at least take the Scottish referendum as an example of how issues of identity and sovereignty can be peacefully and democratically tackled and – hopefully – resolved. I look forward to trying to explain that to my Chinese friends.

当然，这一天还很遥远。与此同时，我们至少能将苏格兰公投作为例子，看看身份和主权问题如何能够以和平、民主的方式得到处理，如果顺利的话还有望得到解决。我期待着尝试向我的中国朋友们解释这一点。