双语时事：苏格兰要英镑等于没独立

2014-09-15 15:37:32来源：可可英语

　　Accept that the currency union could work from a narrowly economic point of view. Is that theend of the story? Definitely not. The point about a currency union – evident from theexperience of the eurozone – is that it is not just about the economies. Sharing a fiat (orgovernment-made) money entails a high degree of institutional and political integration. Thisis why currency unions between notionally independent states are so fraught.

　　假定仅从经济角度来看，这个货币联盟是可行的。这样就可以了吗?当然不。从欧元区的经验可以明显看出，货币联盟的意义在于，它关乎的不仅仅是经济。共享法定(即政府定的)货币，必然会导致高度的制度和政治一体化。正因如此，名义上独立的国家之间的货币联盟才这么令人头疼。

　　Risking that might have made sense for countries proposing to move towards a deeper union,as was the case for the euro (however ill-advised). But how can it make sense for a countrythat has decided to dissolve a union? It is weird to tell the English you are desperate to be ridof them and, in the same breath, say you trust them so much that you wish to share a coreactivity of the state you are leaving.

　　如果相关国家提议进一步深化联盟关系——欧元区就是这种情况(不管这种提议有多么不明智)——那么冒这种风险或许还说得通。但一个已决定要拆散联盟的国家，还有何道理冒这样的风险?一边对英格兰人说你迫切想要摆脱他们，一边又说你是如此信任他们、以至于希望共享这个你将要脱离的国家的一项核心活动，这太奇怪了。

　　How then should the rest of the UK respond the day after a “yes” vote, should that sad eventoccur? By saying that Scotland can be in the sterling area, provided the institutions of thatunion are established under the law of the rest of the UK and are accountable to itsgovernment. Among other things, these institutions would carry out financial regulation. Thefiscal policy of Scotland would be controlled by binding agreements. Scotland would also havespecified fiscal obligations in the event of a bailout. These arrangements between Scotland andthe rest of the UK would be established by treaty.

　　那么，在支持独立的阵营在公投中胜出(假设真的发生这种令人遗憾的情况)后，英国其余地区该如何应对?答案是告诉苏格兰说它可以留在英镑区内，条件是该货币联盟的机构必须依照英国其余地区的法律成立、并向英国政府负责。这些机构的职责之一是实施金融监管。苏格兰的财政政策将受到有约束力的协议的控制。在发生纾困的情况下，苏格兰还将承担明确规定的财政义务。苏格兰和英国其余地区之间的这些安排将通过条约来设立。

　　The logic of the one-sided fiscal rules is that within a currency union, the cost of fiscalprofligacy by a smaller member may be shifted on to the larger one. But the much largermember cannot shift the cost of its profligacy on to the smaller one. Thus Scotland wouldhave an incentive towards profligacy that the rest of the UK would not. A one-sided riskdemands one-sided control.

　　这种“一边倒”的财政规则的道理是，在货币联盟之内，较小成员财政挥霍的成本，或许会转嫁给较大成员;而规模大得多的那个成员，却无法将其财政挥霍的成本转嫁给较小成员。因此，苏格兰有动机趋向挥霍，英国其余地区则没有。“一边倒”的风险要求“一边倒”的控制。

　　A similar logic applies to financial regulation. Scotland might gain from a financial boomheadquartered in Edinburgh whose costs ultimately fell on the rest of the UK. For this reason,regulation would need to be centralised. But Scotland would have to take on some fiscalobligations in the event of a disaster. They could not fall solely on the rest of the UK.

　　类似的道理也适用于金融监管。苏格兰或许会从总部位于爱丁堡的金融机构掀起的金融热潮中获益，但其成本最终会落在英国其余地区头上。因此，监管必须集中化。但在发生灾难的情况下，苏格兰必须承担一些财政义务。财政义务不能只落到英国其余地区肩上。

　　The need for clear lines of accountability and authority is fundamental. One country, onegovernment, one central bank – that is the right principle. This, we have learnt, is particularlyimportant in emergencies. Then the closest possible co-operation between the government, thecentral bank and the regulators is essential. In the next crisis, the government may evenrequire the central bank to finance the government outright. It has to be clear that, in thissituation, the bank would be answerable to one government – the UK government.

　　清晰的责任和权力划分绝对必要。一个国家，一个政府，一家央行——这才是正确的原则。从经验来看，这一点在危急情况下尤其重要。政府、央行和监管机构之间实现尽可能紧密的合作有着至关重要的意义。下一场危机中，政府甚至可能要求央行直接资助政府。必须明确一点：在这种情况下，央行将只对一个政府负责，那就是英国政府。

本文关键字: 双语时事苏格兰要英镑等于没独立