Some years ago, I made a futile attempt to persuade a Chinese diplomat that Taiwan should be allowed to declare independence – if that is what its people want. “If Scotland voted to be a separate nation,” I argued, “England would not stop it.” The diplomat smiled sceptically, like a man recognising a particularly crude falsehood. “I know that’s not true,” he said. “England would never accept Scottish independence. It would invade.”		几年前，我曾徒劳地劝说一位中国外交官：如果台湾民众希望宣布独立，就应该允许他们这样做。当时我提出：“如果苏格兰投票决定独立，英格兰不会阻拦。”那位外交官就像是听到了一句非常明显的谎言，怀疑地笑道：“我知道那是不可能的。英格兰永远都不会让苏格兰独立。它会入侵苏格兰。”
I recalled that conversation in Edinburgh last week as I watched preparations for Scotland’s referendum on independence next September. George Osborne, the UK chancellor, had travelled to the Scottish capital to give a speech warning that an independent Scotland would not be allowed to keep the pound as its currency. A few days later, José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, said that it would be “very difficult, if not impossible” for an independent Scotland to join the EU. This is tough, even brutal, politics – and it has provoked complaints of bullying from pro-independence campaigners.		不久前，在爱丁堡目睹苏格兰为定于9月举行的独立公投做准备时，我回想起了这段对话。英国财政大臣乔治?奥斯本(George Osborne)曾造访苏格兰首府爱丁堡，发表讲话警告称，苏格兰独立后将不能保留英镑为其法定货币。几天后，欧盟委员会(European Commission)主席若泽?曼努埃尔?巴罗佐(José Manuel Barroso)表示，独立后的苏格兰要想加入欧盟将“非常困难、甚至是不可能的”。这是一种非常强硬、甚至可谓蛮横的政治策略，并已引发支持独立的活动人士抗议，他们称这是在仗势欺人。
Yet take a couple of steps back – and place the Scottish referendum in a historic and international context – and what is remarkable about it is how consensual and peaceful it is. The Chinese are not alone in finding it remarkable that the government of the UK is willing to allow the country to break up without a fight. Elif Shafak, a Turkish novelist living in London, told me that she had been pleasantly surprised by the speech in which David Cameron, the British prime minister, appealed to the Scots to vote against independence. As she put it: “Coming from Turkey, where more than 35,000 people were killed in Turkish-Kurdish conflict and the Turkish state is yet to recognise the Kurds’ right to education in their mother tongue, I was positively surprised to hear Cameron speak so peacefully about the possibility of Scottish independence.”		不过退后一步、将苏格兰独立公投放在历史和全球的背景下去看，我们就会发现，其中最让人印象深刻的地方是这种协商一致、和平解决问题的方式。英国政府愿意让国家和平分裂，对此感到惊讶的不只是中国人。生活在伦敦的土耳其小说家叶利夫?沙法克(Elif Shafak)曾告诉我，英国首相戴维?卡梅伦(David Cameron)呼吁苏格兰人对独立投反对票的演讲令她感到又惊又喜。她说：“我来自土耳其，在那里，逾3.5万人在土耳其人和库尔德人的冲突中丧生，土耳其政府如今仍未认可库尔德人接受母语教育的权利。听到卡梅伦如此平静地谈论苏格兰独立的可能性，我当然感到很惊讶。”
The international reaction to the Scottish debate makes me think that the prime minister got something wrong in his speech on February 7. Mr Cameron argued: “If we lost Scotland?.?.?.?we would pull the rug from our reputation.” On the contrary, I think the UK government’s willingness to allow the centuries-old union to be dissolved peacefully is a boost to the country’s reputation. To adopt Mr Cameron’s marketing speak, the British brand is built around tolerance, the rule of law and democracy. There is no better demonstration of those values than the Scottish referendum.		国际社会对苏格兰独立问题论战的反应令我相信，卡梅伦2月7日的演讲中有些话说得不对。卡梅伦声称：“如果我们失去了苏格兰……我们的声望可能会受到损害。”我认为事实恰恰相反，英国政府同意让已有几百年历史的联盟和平解体，将会提升英国的声望。用卡梅伦的营销式语言来说，英国这个品牌的核心是宽容、法治和民主。没有什么东西比苏格兰公投更能完美体现以上价值观了。
There are remarkably few examples of nations breaking up in a civilised way. The most famous is the velvet divorce between the Czechs and the Slovaks in 1993. A better analogy to Scotland’s situation may be Norway’s referendum on independence from Sweden in 1905. After briefly contemplating war, the Swedes thought better of it and negotiated a divorce.		历史上国家以文明方式解体的例子凤毛麟角。其中最有名的是1993年导致捷克和斯洛伐克分裂的天鹅绒革命。与苏格兰的情况更相似的可能是挪威，1905年，挪威为决定是否从瑞典独立出来举行公投。在短暂地考虑过诉诸战争之后，瑞典认为打仗不是个好主意，转而通过协商与挪威“分家”。
Given its brutal history, the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991 was surprisingly peaceful – but the Russians have since fought a savage war to prevent the secession of Chechnya. Even in democratic Europe, Spain is refusing to contemplate the idea of an independence referendum for Catalonia. The US, of course, fought a civil war to save its union. If modern day Texas decided to secede from the US – as Rick Perry, its governor, once hinted that it might – my guess is that Washington would once again fight to keep the country together.		考虑到苏联有实施暴行的历史，1991年的苏联解体过程和平得令人惊叹。不过后来俄罗斯发动了一场野蛮的战争，以阻止车臣独立。就算是在民主的欧洲，西班牙也拒绝考虑让加泰罗尼亚举行独立公投。众所周知，美国也曾为保护合众国的完整发动了一场内战。如果今天的德克萨斯州如该州州长里克?佩里(Rick Perry)曾暗示过的那样、决定脱离美国独立，我猜美国政府会再次发动战争，以保卫国家的完整。
So why is the UK government behaving differently? Why has it decided to imitate Canada, which allowed Quebec to hold a referendum on independence, rather than China or the US which take a harder line with Taiwan and Texas? Probably because the government in Westminster recognises that the UK is a union of separate nations with historically distinct identities: morally and practically it can only be kept together on the basis of consent. Britain did put up a fight to prevent Irish independence, almost a century ago, and that was clearly a mistake. Ending the long-running Troubles in Northern Ireland also involved making it explicit that the province’s destiny is ultimately up to the people who live there.		那么，为什么英国政府采取了不同的应对方式呢？为什么英国决心效仿允许魁北克举行独立公投的加拿大，而不是学习在台湾问题上毫不手软的中国、以及在德克萨斯问题上采取强硬立场的美国呢？这可能是因为英国政府明白，英国是由具有不同历史认同的单个民族组成的联合体。不论从道德还是现实角度来说，这种联盟只能建立在共识的基础上。将近一个世纪前，不列颠确实曾为阻止爱尔兰独立发动过一场战争，而那显然是个错误。长期的北爱尔兰问题(Troubles)之所以终结，也是因为英国政府最后明确表示，北爱的命运最终是由北爱居民自己决定的。
However, while Scottish independence would be achieved peacefully, there is no guarantee that the divorce would be amicable. The reaction to Mr Osborne’s speech ruling out a currency union gave a sense of how bad things could get. In response, the nationalists have said that if an independent Scotland is denied the use of the pound, it would refuse to take on a share of the UK’s debt.		然而，尽管苏格兰独立或许能和平实现，但我们无法保证“分家”过程能和和气气地完成。奥斯本排除货币联盟可能性的讲话引发的反应，在一定程度上反映了情况最坏可能坏到什么地步。苏格兰民族主义者回应称，如果英国不允许独立后的苏格兰继续使用英镑，苏格兰将拒绝分担英国国债。
Both sides insist the other side is bluffing. But what if they are not? If the Scots surprise the pollsters and vote for independence, the subsequent negotiations could swiftly become very messy and acrimonious. If Scotland really did refuse to take on a share of the UK debt, it is possible to imagine that parliament in Westminster would reject the terms of the divorce by refusing to repeal the Act of Union between Scotland and England of 1707. It would not be war but it would be an enormous constitutional crisis.		双方都坚称对方在虚张声势。但如果他们都是来真的，那该怎么办？如果投票结果与民调恰恰相反、是支持独立的，随后的磋商可能很快就会陷入混乱，变得剑拔弩张。可以想象，如果苏格兰真的拒绝分担英国国债，英国议会可能会拒绝废除1707年苏格兰和英格兰之间签订的《联合法案》(Act of Union)，从而否决苏格兰脱离英国的条件。这可能不会引发战争，但会引发一场巨大的宪政危机。
Under such circumstances, even the British might struggle to live up to their self-image of calmness, legality, indifference and fairness. Even so, I still think the assurances I gave to my Chinese diplomat friend hold true. Ultimately both Scotland and England would find a way to make a peaceful divorce work. That would be best for “the children” of the UK. But it would also offer a global lesson in the civilised way to handle separatism.		在这种状况下，就是英国人可能也很难保持自己的一贯形象：冷静、守法、中立、公平。即使如此，我依然认为，我当初信誓旦旦告诉那位中国外交官朋友的话是成立的。苏格兰和英格兰最终会找到一个办法、实现和平“分家”。对于英国的“孩子们”来说，这可能是最好的结果。不过，这也能为全世界提供一个文明处理分离主义的典范。