Английский язык для специальных и академических целей: Международные отношения и зарубежное регионоведение. Часть 1 - [11]

does not exist as an independent sphere of activity.

8. The Scotland Act 1998 __________________ the power to the Scottish Parliament to make

primary legislation on all matters not reserved to the UK Parliament, as long as these comply with EU requirements and European human rights law.

9. Unlike the Battle of Midway, which historians regard as a pivotal moment in World War II, historians regard the Battle of Debrecen as of _________ importance.

10. A __________ politician is economical with the truth, a great politician is praised for telling

the truth.

11. Company executives achieved __________ success at high-speed team building events.

12. Cultures can achieve __________ either by wanting little and producing little or wanting

much and producing much.

13. At least compared to Western Europe, Minsk was still __________ of Old Russia.

14. Failure to ratify the Treaty signalled the European electorate's __________ with the EU and

the process of enlargement.

READING 2

PRE-READING QUESTIONS

1. In what European countries are there regions striving for independence? What makes them do it?

2. What, in your opinion, determined the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum?

Look through the text to find out what the reasons behind the Scotts' decision to stay within the UK might have been.

DON'T LEAVE US THIS WAY

Why we hope the people of Scotland will vote to stay in the union

Jul 12th 2014 | the Economist http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21606832-why-we-hope-people-scotland-will-vote-stay-union-dont-leave-us-way

BRITAIN does not feel like a nation on the verge of cracking up. Many have clutched patriotic flags and wept this summer — but most of them were fans of the England football team, distressed by its rapid exit from the World Cup, not activists demonstrating for and against the breakup of their country. Yet a 307-year-old union, which once ruled a third of humanity and still serves as a role-model to many, could be on the verge of dissolution, because the people of Scotland will vote on independence in a referendum on September 18th.

Opinion polls suggest the Scots will decide against leaving, but it is the nationalists who have fire in their bellies, and Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), is a strong finisher. Even a narrow victory for the status quo would be the biggest blow to the United Kingdom since 1922, when the Irish Free State was born. The campaign has been a bad-tempered one, marked by growing Scottish anger at English complacency and indifference while English resentment of Scottish whingeing and freeloading has risen: only a strong vote for the union will bury this issue.

If the Scots vote to leave, they should of course be allowed to, with Britain's blessing. A desire for self-determination is a strong basis for a claim to nationhood, and there is no reason to think that an independent Scotland would be a disaster, any more than an independent Ireland has been.

But The Economist, itself a product of the Caledonian liberalism of Adam Smith and David Hume, hopes the Scots will decide to stay. That is partly because we believe that a break-up would benefit nobody: on most measures the certain costs for people on both sides of the border far outweigh the uncertain gains. But it is also because much would be lost. Despite the occasional appearance of muddle, there is a point to the union, and one about which liberals should feel passionate.

Red, white and rather blue

Strong arguments are needed to justify a step as big as breaking up a nation. Scottish nationalists argue that an independent Scotland would be more prosperous and more democratic.

On economics, the nationalists say that Scots will be £1,000 a year better-off per head if they go it alone. That number, however, is based on implausible assumptions about the oil price, Scotland's debt burden, demography and productivity. The British government's estimate that Scots would be £1,400 a year better off per head if they stay in is based on more realistic assumptions. Scotland's population is older and sicker than the British average, and productivity 11% lower than that of the rest of Britain. As a result, the state spends around £1,200 more per head on Scots than on the average Briton. Depending on what happens to the oil price, North Sea oil could more or less cover those costs in the short term, but the oil is running out.

It is, of course, possible that independence would cure Scotland's entitlement culture^{14 and revive its entrepreneurial side. If either of its two dominant parties — the SNP and Labour — were disciples of Adam Smith that would be plausible. But their statist philosophies are more likely to drive Edinburgh's fund managers, Aberdeen's oil-services engineers and other talented Scots south. Independence would also impose one-off costs: a new Scottish state would have to set up an army, a welfare system, a currency and much else.}

You stole my soul and that's a pain I can do without

The argument that an independent Scotland would be more democratic is a stronger one, for Scotland and England have grown apart. Two generations ago, there were nearly as many Conservative MPs as Labour ones in Scotland, but the Scots have not forgiven the Tories for the impact of Thatcherism on their heavily industrial economy. Nationalist protesters recently donned panda outfits to remind David Cameron, the Conservative prime minister, that there are more pandas in