2015年经济学人 苏格兰的民族情怀 烦心乱意（在线收听）

Scottish nationalism

Thistles and thorns

What the Scottish National Party will try to do in Westminster

WITH hardly a glimpse of tartan, Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP),

presented her squad of 56 MPs at the House of Commons on May 11th (although she herself is not one of them).

Their increased numbers—the SNP won all but three Scottish seats—represented a victory beyond most nationalists' dreams.

Yet their modest demeanour suggested that, for now, they have come to London to do business, not to cause chaos.

A decade ago the scale of the SNP's success would have been seen as a mandate for independence.

Alex Salmond, Ms Sturgeon's predecessor, drew that conclusion again. But Ms Sturgeon claims separation is not high on her agenda.

She has even played down the idea of a speedy introduction of full fiscal autonomy, seeking only a promise from Westminster to start handing more powers to Scotland.

Part of the reason for the more cautious tone is that the collapsing oil price and the decline of offshore revenues has made independence seem like a dubious proposition.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), an independent think-tank, calculates that, under full tax autonomy,Scotland would need to find an additional 7.6 billion

(12 billion) to close its deficit to British levels, a gap it reckons will widen to 9.7 billion, or 4.9% of Scottish GDP, by 2019-20.

To accept tax autonomy without continuing to receive the substantial subsidy Scotland currently gets from the Treasury is “tantamount to economic suicide”,

says George Kerevan, an SNP politician.

Another explanation for the caution is that, after last September's independence referendum, in which 55% of Scots voted to remain part of Britain,

David Cameron, the prime minister, promised to give Scotland new fiscal powers.

Over the next five years the Scottish government is due to gain control of earned-income taxes, air-passenger duty and a levy on aggregates such as sand and gravel.

It will also be assigned the revenues of the first ten percentage points of value-added tax and oversee around 2.5 billion, or about 15%, of welfare spending.

The IFS reckons this will make Ms Sturgeon responsible for raising about half of what her government spends.

She and her party nonetheless could, and probably will, give Mr Cameron a headache. Though not rushing now to achieve it in full,

Ms Sturgeon has made clear that she wants even more fiscal control. She would like to oversee most welfare spending,

as well as corporation tax and national-insurance payments.

The SNP hopes to reduce employers' contributions to national insurance in order to compensate for raising the minimum wage.

Ms Sturgeon wants the floor to rise from 6.50 per hour now to 8.70 by 2020. This, she says, would enable her to boost the economy,

reduce the deficit and move towards full tax autonomy more quickly.

The new SNP intake can also be expected to make full use of their privileges as the third-largest party at Westminster.

MPs will pose tricky questions and use committee chairmanships to harry the government, especially over austerity.

Ms Sturgeon argues that such actions would not just be on behalf of Scots but for all Britons.

She sees Labour entering “a period of introspection” and claims the SNP will be “the principal opposition” in Westminster.

This leaves Labour in a bind over whether to position itself to the SNP's right or left.

But it also poses a dilemma for Mr Cameron. He could concede to what the SNP wants,

in order to avert further fracturing between Scotland and England—but that would imply the Scots were right to elect them.

Or he could dig in and allow himself to be caricatured as the Scots' enemy. Either way, Ms Sturgeon looks to be sitting pretty.