蘇格蘭公投 文明的統獨之爭

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.

用中文解釋蘇格蘭獨立辯論的背景或許會比你以爲的更難，這主要是因爲在中文中，nation（國家，民族）、country（國家）和state（國家，政府）這三個詞都被籠統地翻譯爲同一個詞：“國家”。

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?

我是一個背井離鄉的蘇格蘭人，在上世紀90年代至本世紀頭十年、我在中國生活的那些年裏，我多次遇到無法用中文精確表述的麻煩。朋友與相識的人那時會問我，蘇格蘭爲何既被視爲一個國家(nation)、同時又屬於高度集權的英國？之前的3個世紀裏都沒有的蘇格蘭議會，爲何在1999年忽然成立了？而北京的出租車司機最感興趣的問題是，蘇格蘭爲何有自己的國家足球隊，但又作爲大不列顛國家隊的一部分參加奧運會？

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.

不過，我的許多中國朋友們那時最難以理解的是，蘇格蘭民族主義爲何居然能成爲英國政治圖景中一個可接受的組成部分？中國是在1912年被推翻的清朝的殘骸上建立起來的，獨立運動在這個國家是個禁忌。西藏、新疆的“分裂主義”都受到無情地鎮壓，臺灣事實上的獨立也只不過被勉強、暫時地容忍下來。

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.

在東亞待了近20年之後，我返回故土、擔任英國《金融時報》駐蘇格蘭記者，我發現，英國對蘇格蘭分裂主義的應對方式大不相同。在這裏，程序是絕對民主、且近乎完全和平的。參與辯論的各派都認同一點：蘇格蘭的未來應該由蘇格蘭人民的意志決定。其他面臨分裂主義問題的國家出動的是坦克，而值得讚賞的是，英國反擊分裂主義的方式是承諾加大權力下放，製作各種五顏六色的小冊子、宣傳聯盟的好處。

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.

這並不是說蘇格蘭的辯論完全沒有缺點——辯論質量一般，嚴肅、理性的討論往往被職業政客和偏袒某一黨派的媒體的誇誇其談所淹沒。儘管幸運的是，反英格蘭情緒沒有出現在主流辯論中，但一種齷齪的民族主義極端思想污染了社交媒體和坊間的某些談話。

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.

但應該退後一步來看。三分之一國土、8%人口可能從一個大國分裂出去，這個問題正在通過令人吃驚的和平、自由、很多時候甚至友好的辯論得到討論。要理解這有多麼難得，你只用看看烏克蘭——3月舉行的有爭議的公投，導致俄羅斯吞併克里米亞、政府武裝和分裂主義者在邊境地區爆發血腥戰鬥。參與蘇格蘭獨立辯論者或許面臨受到辱罵的風險，就一位支持維持聯盟的議員而言，還面臨被砸雞蛋的風險，但沒有人會對他們開槍，或炮轟他們的村莊。

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.

這種更加文明的氛圍的結果之一，是降低了爭論所涉及的利害。蘇格蘭民族主義者無法令人信服地宣稱，他們的民族受到壓迫。因此，蘇格蘭民族黨(SNP)提出的獨立主張非常溫和，信奉公民價值觀，而不是民族認同，強調繼續與英國其餘部分保持緊密聯繫。獨立後的蘇格蘭將謀求堅決留在歐盟(EU)內，承諾允許人員自由流動和自由貿易。

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.

這意味着蘇格蘭的獨立，或許會跟我的中國朋友們理解的獨立不一樣。獨立跟作爲英國的享有一定自治權的一部分，兩者只有程度的差別。蘇格蘭經濟將與英國其餘地區緊密聯繫在一起，並將深深融入歐盟整體。一些支持聯盟的政客陰暗地警告稱，獨立將破壞西方的安全，讓敵人如意，但可能性大得多的情況是，歐洲的秩序將迅速根據新獨立的蘇格蘭做出調整，獨立後的蘇格蘭將樂於對共同安全做出自己的貢獻。

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.

蘇格蘭支持獨立的陣營願意接受一種國家自治權有限的未來，只要分享和共用哪些主權是由蘇格蘭人決定，這一點也令人驚異。

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.

事實上，我倒認爲，歐洲正在經歷一種更長遠、更廣泛的變化進程，擺脫一種理所當然的觀念，即政治事務的基本單位爲傳統主權民族國家，蘇格蘭的獨立公投（無論其結果如何）或許最終會被視爲這一進程中的一步。

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.

我們不應害怕這樣的改變。民族國家畢竟只是一種社會觀念，按照其目前定義，大體上可追溯至17世紀中期。如烏克蘭和西藏的例子所示，民主和法治能夠促進人類福祉的可能性，大大高於效忠某面特定旗幟或版圖的界線所能做到的。

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.

我會在9月18日那天投票，但我的選擇將不會由我對某個國家（無論是英國還是蘇格蘭）的熱愛所決定。在我看來，在理想的世界中，民族國家事實上會越來越不重要，重心將轉移到範圍更廣的政治單位上，這會使氣候變化等問題能夠實現真正的全球合作，讓每個社會能夠真正實現本地事務本地決策。

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.

當然，這一天還很遙遠。與此同時，我們至少能將蘇格蘭公投作爲例子，看看身份和主權問題如何能夠以和平、民主的方式得到處理，如果順利的話還有望得到解決。我期待着嘗試向我的中國朋友們解釋這一點。