【外交政策20120215】独立吧，苏格兰！
本帖最后由 woikuraki 于 2012-3-31 14:52 编辑【中文标题】独立吧，苏格兰！
【原文标题】Free Scotland Why the Scots want independence
【登载媒体】外交政策
【原文作者】GERRY HASSAN
【原文链接】http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/15/freedom
苏格兰的民族主义志向向来没有得到国际社会的广泛关注，但是过去的几个星期却是苏格兰长期谋求独立以来颇为激动人心的时刻。1月25日苏格兰首席部长Alex Salmond和他的苏格兰民族党政府（SNP）宣布，将在2014年秋天进行历史性的全民公决，决定苏格兰的独立方向。这引起了全世界的关注、报道、评论和好奇的目光。
SNP政府所设计的公决问题是：“你是否赞成苏格兰应当称为一个独立的国家？”SCNP还在考虑是否在公决中包括第二个问题，这个问题的具体措辞尚未确定，但它所表达的是一种相对缓和的举措，即在不完全独立的情况下获得更多的自治权力。这个观点被外界称为“devo max”，它赢得了大部分公众的支持，但支持人数不得而知，因为毕竟具体的问题还没有出现。
伦敦并未对当前的形势给予正面回应。英国首相卡梅伦在2月16日发誓要“不惜一切手段来保护英国的领土完整”。他还说：“对我来说，这不是政治、战略和筹划上的问题，而是关乎思想、内心和灵魂的问题。我们共同的家园遭遇了危险，每一个关心它的人都有说话的权力。”卡梅伦或许在未来会发现，他的这种表态只会加速他所发誓要保护的联合王国的灭亡进程。
很多人在想，苏格兰为何会纠结于独立这个选择，联合王国毕竟自17世纪以来就处于相当平静的状态。但苏格兰的独立的确有强大的原因支持，在欧洲和英国近期饱受经济折磨的背景下，这些理由变得更加难以抗拒。
苏格兰与联合王国的其他地区有所不同，英国其实并没有完全一致的政治制度，苏格兰、威尔士和北爱尔兰都有各自的国会和议会。
1707年，苏格兰与英格兰的结合形成了目前的联合王国，但是苏格兰在过去一个世纪中变得越来越独立。首先，联合王国政府在1885年成立了苏格兰办公室，负责监管国家领土的逐渐扩张。之后在1926年，“苏格兰国务卿”成为内阁的标准职位，战后一段时期，有越来越多的新任部长加入其中。1999年，苏格兰国会成立，专门负责苏格兰的公共事务。
SNP成立于1934年，早期以一个独立政府的方式运作。从60年代开始，它逐渐演变为一股强大的政治力量。在80年代，定位于左派的SNP是反对玛格丽特•撒切尔首相的反保守派联盟中的重要成员。但与此同时，SNP也包容了苏格兰社会各个层面的意愿，它在苏格兰议会中占据大多数席位，在下议院有6个席位。
过去30年里，苏格兰选民对英国政府和认同和信任逐年递减。2009年，苏格兰社会意愿调查结果显示，61％的苏格兰人相信苏格兰政府会保护他们的利益，25％的人则信任英国政府。威斯敏斯特（译者注：英国议会所在地，特指英国议会）的一些政策和干预行为——包括宏观经济、福利、国防、外交事务——在很多苏格兰选民看来问题多多，因此而遭到抵制。大多数公众倾向于建立一个更加自治、独立的苏格兰政治体制，苏格兰议会处理大部分国内事务，把国防和外交工作交给伦敦那帮人。
苏格兰政治曾经被描绘成一群强大的集体主义者、亲社会主义工人运动、传统工业的文化所在地和联合王国其它成员的团结力量。但是，这样的传统在近几十年来遭遇到前所未有的危机，主要原因是英帝国的灭亡、宗教信仰的衰败，以及撒切尔对苏格兰工会的猛烈抨击。
苏格兰与英国在过去三十年的发展方向有巨大的差异。在撒切尔、布莱尔和现在的卡梅伦政府下，英国的公共服务事业基本已经市场化，易受公司行为的影响。苏格兰的公共服务事业走的是另一条路，既确保政府履行责任又保证了公平。例如，苏格兰和英国的医疗服务完全是两个不同的机制，苏格兰的医疗保障目标由政府设定，一家机构包揽；英国的医疗服务比较零散，由不同的私人企业提供，而且允许盈利。
而且，英国政府长期以来把苏格兰当作造成联合王国间逐渐疏远原因所在。撒切尔当政时的一系列政策让苏格兰人感觉受到了歧视，包括1989年实施的人头税。布莱尔对苏格兰的民族意识不屑一顾，他曾经说，如果SNP控制苏格兰政府，将是“宪政制度的噩梦”，并且敦促工党反对SNP。
卡梅伦的联合政府中只有一名苏格兰保守派下院议员，其余11人都是自由民主党，所以几乎没有人提醒他北方问题的严重性。最近几个月，他们对苏格兰问题表现出一种混合了自满、无知、紧张和健忘的情绪。卡梅伦说苏格兰独立的前景“一片昏暗”，还说他认为“苏格兰人民在内心深处不希望完全独立”，尽管近期的民意调查与他的想法大相径庭。
尽管民族主义情绪高涨，但苏格兰的激进分子还需要说服选民，一个独立的苏格兰可以凭借自己的力量站在世界舞台上。2008年，苏格兰两家大银行——苏格兰皇家银行和苏格兰哈利法克斯银行——在英国政府的注资下得以存活，这似乎说明脱离英国之后的前途将面临巨大的挑战。当然，这两家银行之所以面临危机，主要原因是英国无关痛痒的政策和国家巨额的债务。从理论上说，这两家银行已经不完全属于苏格兰了。
一个独立的苏格兰将使用哪种货币？就目前情况来看，苏格兰会与其它联合王国成员保持在同一个金融体系中，也就是说苏格兰人还是会使用英镑。SCN可以参照爱尔兰现成的例子，他们在过去60年中一直使用英国货币。
但是问题并非一个独立的苏格兰将如何生存下去，而是我们在目前情况下该怎样前进。据SNP声称，一个独立的英格兰将成为世界上人均财富第六大国。今天，它跟在伦敦和东南部之后，是联合王国第三富裕地区。然而与此同时，苏格兰有五分之一的儿童陷于贫困，据格拉斯哥人口健康研究重心详细的调查数字显示，苏格兰大部分贫困地区（格拉斯哥和西部地区）的人均寿命在西欧排名垫底。
一个独立的苏格兰有可能会成为一个超级石油富国。自从苏格兰东北部海域的北海石油被勘探出，它给伦敦的金库带来了2500亿英镑的收入，其中大部分本应归苏格兰所有。专业人士称，即使该油田的开采高峰期已经结束，但它依然可供开采数十年。想想苏格兰会拿它自己的这个聚宝盆怎么办——看看储油丰富的挪威是怎样发展成世界上最发达国家的就知道了。
那英国该怎么办？缺少了苏格兰的联合王国似乎需要一个新名字，在历史上，联合王国的名字就来源于苏格兰和英格兰王权的结合。但是，这样的分离要比让人们逐渐认识一个新的英国少了一些戏剧性的因素。苏格兰首席部长Salmond近期在伦敦的一次讲话中，提到了一个对联合王国相当现实而又比较灵活的观点，他说这个国家应当多元化发展，接纳各类不同的政治体制。人们应当用更包容的心态看待苏格兰的独立意愿——制定独特的福利和劳动市场政策——同时允许泛英国合作，甚至还可以接受某些政治联合。
或许除了一些传统的苏格兰民族主义者，这是大家都能认可的一个理论。SNP和大部分成员愿意接受的现实是，在全球化时代，需要明确地定义自治的单一民族国家的身份。尽管分离主义者的目的依然是完全独立，但民族党也表示愿意接受在现存联合王国的框架下，逐渐衍生出独特的苏格兰郡，乃至国家和管理体制。
最终结果如何，在很大程度上取决于英国政府的智慧。伦敦的政客们有能力回应苏格兰民主主义者越来越现实、越来越具有弹性的建议吗？如果他们可以，苏格兰的雄心壮志就有可能促成一个不符合传统独立意义的松散联盟关系。
但是，如果他们继续按近几个月以来的方式行事，表现出英国政府在历史上对待惹麻烦的起义者那样著名的傲慢情绪，那么英国的分裂机会将大大增加，或许真会出现一个完全独立、自治的苏格兰国家也说不定。
原文：
Scotland's nationalist ambitions don't generally get international attention, but the past few weeks have been a uniquely exciting time in the long-running campaign for Scottish independence. On Jan. 25, Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister, and his Scottish National Party (SNP) government announced plans for a historic referendum on independence to be held in the fall of 2014, attracting coverage, comment, and curiosity from around the world.
The SNP government's proposed question is "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" The SNP is considering whether a second, as yet undefined question should be asked, suggesting an intermediate step of devolving powers to the Scottish government without full independence. This notion, known as "devo max," has the support of a significant portion of public opinion -- though this support remains unmeasurable given that no serious detailed proposals have yet emerged.
London has not responded well to this development. In a speech on Feb. 16, British Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to "fight with everything I have to keep our United Kingdom together." He continued: "To me, this is not some issue of policy or strategy or calculation -- it matters head, heart, and soul. Our shared home is under threat and everyone who cares about it needs to speak out.” In the end, Cameron may find that this type of rhetoric will only hasten the demise of the union he has vowed to protect.
Many are wondering why, exactly, this disquiet has emerged in Scotland. After all, the union has been a pretty peaceful one since at least the 17th century. But there is indeed a strong case to be made for an independent Scotland, a case that has only grown more compelling in light of Europe's and Britain's latest economic woes.
Scotland is a different place from the rest of the United Kingdom, and increasingly there is no such thing as a unitary UK politics, but Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, and English politics with devolved parliaments and assemblies in the first three.
The union of Scotland and England created the United Kingdom in 1707, but Scotland has grown gradually more independent over the last century. First there was the Scottish Office, a department of the UK government set up in 1885 to oversee the slowly expanding state, followed by the "secretary of state for Scotland" becoming a full cabinet post in 1926 with more junior ministers added over the postwar era. Then, in 1999, the Scottish Parliament was established, with control of most of Scotland's public services.
The SNP was formed in 1934 and in its early days stood for full self-government. It then began to become a serious political force from the mid-1960s onward. In the 1980s, the SNP -- which defines itself as a party of the center-left -- was a vital part of the anti-Tory coalition against Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. But the SNP is also a big tent reflecting the spectrum of Scottish society, with a majority in the Scottish Parliament and six seats in the House of Commons.
The last 30 years have seen a long, slow decline in Scottish voters' identification with and trust in the British state. In 2009, the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey found that 61 percent of Scots trusted the Scottish government to act in Scotland's interests versus 25 percent who trusted the British government. Increasingly, Westminster's interventions and policies -- including macroeconomic policy, welfare, defense, and foreign affairs -- are seen as problematic to many Scottish voters and inviting challenge. And the majority public opinion increasingly points toward wishing to have a more autonomous, distinctive Scottish political space in which the Scottish Parliament runs most domestic issues, leaving defense and foreign policy to the folks in London.
Scottish politics were once defined by a powerful collectivist and socialist-oriented labor movement and a national culture centered on traditional industries and solidarity with the rest of the United Kingdom. But this tradition has fallen into crisis in recent decades, weakened by the demise of the British Empire, the decline of religion, and Thatcher's assaults on Scottish labor unions.
Scotland and England have evolved in very different directions over the last three decades. Under Thatcher, Tony Blair, and now Cameron, English public services have become increasingly marketized and prone to corporate influence. Scottish public services have pointed in a very different direction, championing equity and clear lines of accountability. For instance, the Scottish and English health services are now very different entities, with Scotland's organized as one national service with targets set by the government, whereas the English system is more fragmented, being run in places by private providers and allowing profits.
In addition, British governments have increasingly misread Scotland as the ties of the union have weakened. Under Thatcher, Scots felt discriminated against by a host of policies including the implementation of a controversial poll tax in 1989. Blair was dismissive of Scottish national aspirations, calling the possibility of an SNP-controlled Scottish government a "constitutional nightmare" and urging his Labour Party to fight against it.
Cameron's coalition government has few Scottish Tory voices giving it advice about its emerging northern problem, with only one Scottish Conservative MP and 11 Liberal Democrats. In recent months, they have displayed a mix arrogance, ignorance, nervousness, and forgetfulness on the Scottish issue. Cameron described the prospect of an independent Scotland as "desperately sad" and said he thinks the "Scottish people at heart do not want a full separation," despite recent polls suggesting that this might no longer be the case.
Despite growing nationalist sentiment, Scottish nationalists still need to convince voters that an independent Scotland could stand on its own two feet -- a task that became particularly salient in 2008 when Scotland's two leading banks, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland had to be bailed out by the British government. Arguably, these banks' crises were due to British light-touch regulation and the explosion of the British debt mountain. If anything, the banks weren't Scottish enough.
What sort of currency would an independent Scotland use? Under most of the current proposals, Scotland would still be in a currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom -- meaning Scots would still be spending pounds. The SNP can also point to the ready example of independent Ireland, which kept its currency linked to sterling for nearly 60 years.
But the question should not be how an independent Scotland could survive. It should be: How can we continue under the current arrangement? An independent Scotland would be the sixth-wealthiest country in the world per head, the SNP claims. Today, it's the third-richest region of the United Kingdom outside London and the southeast. Yet at the same time, one in five Scottish children lives in poverty. Life expectancy in the most deprived parts of Scotland (Glasgow and the west) is the worst anywhere in Western Europe, according to detailed research by the Glasgow Centre for Population Health.
An independent Scotland could become a very wealthy petrostate. Some £250 billion worth of North Sea oil has flown straight from the northeast waters of Scotland into Treasury coffers in London since its discovery, most of which would have come to Scotland. Even if peak production has passed, experts say, the North Sea fields could pump out crude for several decades. Imagine what Scots could do with their own sovereign wealth fund -- the kind of long-term thinking that has made oil-rich Norway the world's most highly developed country.
But what, then, of Britain? A Scotland-less United Kingdom might need a new name, the United Kingdom historically being the name of the union of the two crowns of Scotland and England. But the separation could be less a dramatic rupture than the gradual evolution toward a new understanding of the British state. At a recent lecture in London, Salmond, the Scottish first minister, presented a very pragmatic and flexible vision of the United Kingdom, describing a country with an increasingly divergent, pluralistic set of political systems. A more flexible arrangement would allow for Scottish aspirations -- developing distinct welfare and labor-market policies -- while also permitting pan-British co-operation and perhaps even some kind of political union.
That might be just fine with all but the most traditional Scottish nationalists. The SNP and most of its members are comfortable with the fact that in the age of globalization, the status of autonomous nation-states need not be narrowly defined. While the separatists' goal is still ultimately full independence, the party is comfortable with the gradual emergence of a distinct Scottish state, statehood, and statecraft under the framework of the existing United Kingdom.
How this all turns out will depend largely on the wisdom of the British government. Will the politicians in London be able to respond to the increasingly pragmatic and flexible approach of the Scottish Nationalists? If they are able to, it is likely that Scottish aspirations can be accommodated in a much looser union that falls short of conventional independence.
If, however, they continue to act as they have done in recent months, displaying all the famed arrogance of British governments through time immemorial in dealing with troublesome revolts, then they will increase the prospects of the breakup of Britain and the emergence of a fully independent, self-governing Scotland.
其他国家怎么闹腾咱就看热闹只要中国没事就好 拿分走人 英国一直对分裂其它国这不遗余力，结果是自已分裂到只剩下小岛的一半了。报应吧。 很有趣~~
事实上，“英国”这个词好像只存在于汉语体系里，他们被视为或被等同于一个国家，但他们的全称实际应该是“大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国”。如果你遇到个操英国口音的家伙，他会很认真的告诉你，“我是不列颠人”，或者“我是苏格兰人”、“我是威尔士人”。
这个联合王国的漫长历史真是有趣的很，一直都是我最感兴趣的历史话题，可惜这里是政治咨询版，而那个所谓历史版块，又没人对世界史有兴趣…… 苏格兰独立了，是不是威尔士和北爱尔兰也会响应呢 搬凳子笑看。大英帝国一直尽心尽力的致力于分裂别人，西藏新疆都没少见英国的鬼影。现在搬起石头砸自己脚了。该 独立吧，苏格兰！ 支持苏格兰独立
转基因的前世今生
http://player.youku.com/player.php/sid/XMzExODAzODg4/v.swf
顶一下。 核武器谁继承?联合国安理会常任理事国谁继承? 早就该这样了 看了勇敢的心，就知道苏格兰人民是个坚强的民族。 run for your freedom ，Scotland！！！
独立吧，苏格兰！！
英国鬼子真是搬起石头砸自己的脚，呵呵呵 活该！英国佬1 如果苏格兰独立了，英国的国名也会受到影响吧？ 支持苏格兰人民的正义选择！老欧洲殖民者也应该变变了。最好分成英格兰、苏格兰、威尔士和北爱尔兰（和爱尔兰合并）独立的国家。联合王国在英王过去后极有可能分裂。 独立吧！！！！ 我只是看看不说话 大儒与大愚 发表于 2012-2-20 11:28 static/image/common/back.gif
英国一直对分裂其它国这不遗余力，结果是自已分裂到只剩下小岛的一半了。报应吧。 ...
949494949494949494 又一个台湾。中国支持一个英国的政策，但也要保持苏格兰一定的防护能力，中国要遵守与《与苏格兰关系法》。