译者 frmann
Scotland is to vote on independence. The referendum should ask one question: in or out?
苏格兰准备就独立问题进行全民公决，公决只应该问一个问题：合还是分？
Jan 14th 2012 | from the print edition
2012年1月14日|来自实体版
AFTER three hundred years of union, Scots are to be given the chance to vote for independence. The offer of a legally-binding referendum, probably in 2014, comes from David Cameron, who is not just prime minister of the United Kingdom but also leader of an outfit formally known as the Conservative and Unionist Party. It is more than a remarkable concession. Since the Scots may indeed plump for independence (see article), it is also quite a risk.
在联合了三百年后，苏格兰人民有了选择要不要独立的机会。联合王国的首相大卫·卡梅伦（David Cameron）给了苏格兰人民这次可能在2014年举行的有法律效力的全民公决的机会，不过讽刺的是他除了是首相外还是称为“保守和联合主义者党”（Conservative and Unionist Party，即保守党）的组织的领袖。这是一个巨大的让步。因为苏格兰人民可能投票选择独立，所以这次全民公决有相当的风险。
Mr Cameron’s move has not, however, been met with overwhelming gratitude in Scotland. Widely described as a “Westminster Eton toff” north of the border, he is suspected of setting a trap by trying to bounce Scotland into a vote on terms that would tip the balance in the union’s favour.
不过，卡梅伦的行动并没有满足大多数苏格兰人的愿望。首相在（英苏）分界线以北被人称作“威斯敏斯特的伊顿公子哥”，人们怀疑他的这一举动是在设置陷阱，企图让苏格兰全民公决的时间对联盟有利。
Mr Cameron wants a straight in-or-out question. Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister and leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), which dominates the legislature in Edinburgh, is not so sure. He has said he favours a simple question. But he also points out there is a powerful view in Scotland that the country ought to be given more powers, taking it just to the brink of independence—“devolution max”, as it is known. Perhaps the referendum should reflect this view by offering three choices. Or perhaps two questions should be asked at the same time: whether Scotland should become independent, and whether it should acquire more powers.
卡梅伦希望在选票上只有合-分两种选择。而控制了苏格兰议会的苏格兰民族党（Scottish National Party）的领袖、苏格兰第一部长阿列克斯·萨蒙德（Alex Salmond）则不打算这么做。他自称喜欢简单的问题，不过他也指出苏格兰很多人认为这个“国家”需要得到更多的权力，让它走到独立的边缘——称为“最大授权”。也许全民公决也应当反映这种观点，因而给人们第三个选项。或许是同时问两个问题：苏格兰该不该独立，以及它是否应当从联合王国收回一些权力。
It is easy to see why the nationalists are keen to muddy the clear Scottish waters. Polls suggest that Scots are keener on more power than on outright independence. Give them three options, and the unionist vote could split, possibly producing a plurality for independence. Whatever the result of the vote, Scotland would surely end up with more powers. The SNP would have delivered something to its nationalist supporters.
显然，苏格兰民主党想要苏格兰的水搅浑。民意调查显示苏格兰人更希望得到更多权力而不是彻底独立。如果他们有了第三个选择，倾向留在联合王国的选民的选票就会分散，从而可能让独立成为最受支持的选项。不管投票结果如何，苏格兰都必然得到更多权力。苏格兰民族党会让他们的民族主义支持者得到回报。
But anything other than a straight in-or-out question may result in a damaging wrangle. What if, in a three-part question, independence wins—but with only 35% of the vote? What if 51% of Scots vote for independence, but, in a second question, 80% vote for more powers? Nationalists would interpret that as a mandate for independence. But Westminster could fairly argue that Scots apparently prefer further devolution to outright independence.
但如果全民公决的议题不是直接的合-分问题，将来可能产生毁灭性的争执。如果在三个选项的投票中，独立以仅仅35%的多数赢了该如何？如果51%的苏格兰人支持独立，但在第二个问题中有80%的苏格兰人支持从联合王国收回权力又该如何？民族主义者也许会把这当成独立的授权，但威斯敏斯特则会澄清说苏格兰人民想要的是更多的自主权而不是彻底独立。
Scotch, neat, no ice
纯苏格兰威士忌，不加冰
A simple question also makes for straightforward campaigning. The Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would have to explain why union is good for Scotland—something they have so far done poorly, which is one reason they are in headlong retreat north of the border. The SNP, for its part, would have to explain the problem to which independence is the solution—which they haven’t done either. And if the Scots turn down independence, they can later be asked if they want more devolution.
在这次苏格兰“大选”的竞选活动中，人们需要问一个简单的问题。保守党、工党和自由民主党需要解释为什么联合对苏格兰有利——此前他们一直没能说清楚这个问题，导致在分界线以北的影响力迅速丧失。而苏格兰民族党则应当解释独立可以解决什么问题——他们也没能给人民解释。如果苏格兰人民没有选择独立，民族党还需要告诉人民他们为什么要更多权力。
Mr Cameron’s question, then, is the right one. And he should have a say on the referendum’s terms. Divorces affect both partners. Scottish independence would have mighty consequences for Britain, raising questions from how to settle the two nations’ fiscal accounts to where the Royal Navy’s nuclear submarines should be parked, if not in Scotland’s deep lochs.
这样，卡梅伦就提出了正确的问题。他应当就全民公决发表自己的看法。离婚同时影响双方。如何分配联合王国资金？没有了苏格兰幽深的湖泊，皇家海军的核潜艇又该停在哪里？……苏格兰独立会在各个方面对不列颠产生深远的影响。
Canada has a sensible model for moving towards independence: its government has passed a law which sets various conditions on any future referendum on Quebec’s independence, including that the question should be a clear one. If most Scots wish to leave Britain, so be it. But it must be a clean divorce, not a long, finger-pointing row that hurts everyone.
加拿大在独立事务上就有理智的操作规范：政府制定法律，为魁北克将来独立的全民公决设置了各种条件，其中有一条就是问题必须是一个而且清晰。如果苏格兰人民希望离开不列颠，那就让他们去吧。不过我们的分手应当明明白白，不要把它拖成一个冗长的离婚大战，让我们彼此指责、各自受伤。
from the print edition | Leaders
来自实体版|领袖
from 译言-每日精品译文推荐 http://article.yeeyan.org/view/235852/246197
