约翰·斯温尼为其就英国国家养老金拟议改革所发表的言论进行了辩护，此前有人指控他可能误导了议会。
John Swinney has defended comments he made about proposed changes to the UK state pension amid claims he may have misled parliament.
在安迪·伯纳姆宣布对“三重锁定”机制进行潜在改革后，这位首席大臣向苏格兰议会议员表示，“我们现在将失去养老金”。
After Andy Burnham announced potential reforms to the "triple lock", the first minister told MSPs that "we are now going to lose our pensions".
苏格兰保守党领袖拉塞尔·芬莱表示，这是一个“不准确且不负责任”的言论，可能会引发退休人员的担忧。
Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay said this was an "inaccurate and irresponsible" comment which could cause concern to pensioners.
斯温尼现已致信芬莱，为这些言论辩护，并补充称，监督大臣守则的独立顾问如果愿意，可以发起调查。
Swinney has now written to Findlay defending the remarks - adding that the independent advisers who oversee the ministerial code could initiate an investigation should they wish.
“三重锁定”于2011年引入，是一项担保政策，即英国国家养老金每年将按照通货膨胀率、平均工资增长率或2.5%这三者中的最高标准进行上调。
The "triple lock" was introduced in 2011 as a guarantee that the UK state pension would rise each year in line with whichever is the highest of inflation, average wages, or 2.5%.
伯纳姆在工党会议演讲中表示，他将寻求从2030年4月（即下届大选之后）开始“调整”这一规则。
In his Labour conference speech, Burnham said he would look to "adjust" this rule from April 2030 - after the next general election.
他表示，养老金将按照通货膨胀率或2.5%中的较高者进行上调，并补充说，养老金“随着时间的推移将保持其相对于收入的价值”。
He said pensions would rise in line with the highest of inflation or 2.5%, and added that it would "hold its value relative to earnings over time".
英国政府表示，这将使2030年代末的养老金预计支出每年减少150亿英镑，到2050年每年减少将达500亿英镑。
The UK government says this would reduce projected spending on pensions by £15bn a year by the end of the 2030s, rising to £50bn a year by 2050.
伯纳姆表示，这将为从2030年起在英格兰建立新的国家护理服务体系提供资金。
Burnham said this would provide funding to deliver a new National Care Service in England from 2030.
国家养老金在全英国范围内实行。在苏格兰，约有110万人生效领取该养老金，这一数字预计到2047年将上升至140万。
The state pension operates UK-wide. In Scotland about 1.1m people are in receipt of it, a figure which is projected to rise to 1.4m by 2047.
然而，社会护理在苏格兰属于权力下放事务，早在2002年就已引入了免费个人护理制度。
However social care is devolved in Scotland, and a system of free personal care was introduced way back in 2002.
斯温尼表示，这意味着苏格兰的退休人员将受到三重锁定机制变化的影响，但无法受益于拟议的护理改革。
Swinney says this means Scottish pensioners would be affected by the changes to the triple lock, but would not benefit from the proposed care changes.
他还表示，此举将在2050年之前“从苏格兰退休人员手中夺走多达40亿英镑”，并补充说“这意味着按实际价值计算，到2050年苏格兰每位退休人员的状况将恶化近2000英镑”。
said the move would "take up to £4bn from Scotland's pensioners" by 2050, adding that "this would mean in real terms every pensioner in Scotland being almost £2,000 worse off in 2050".
英国政府表示，它并不认可这些数据。这些数据是通过计算苏格兰在养老金领取年龄人口中所占的比例，并与改革预计带来的节省金额进行比较而得出的。
The UK government says it does not recognise these figures, which have been calculated by working out Scotland's share of the pension-age population, compared with the projected saving from the changes.
周四，苏格兰工党领袖迈克尔·马拉在苏格兰议会质询了斯威尼关于其社交媒体帖子的内容，并指责这位首席部长“歪曲了英国政府对社会护理改革的态度”。
On Thursday, Swinney was challenged about his social media post in the Holyrood chamber by Scottish Labour leader Michael Marra, who accused the first minister of "misrepresenting the position of the UK government on social care reform".
随后，在与苏格兰保守党领袖拉塞尔·芬德利的一次交锋中，斯威尼声称“我们现在将失去我们的养老金”，并表示这证明了苏格兰独立的必要性。
And in a subsequent exchange with Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay, Swinney stated that "we are now going to lose our pensions", saying this made the case for Scottish independence.
令人意外的是，芬德利与斯威尼在维持“三重保障”政策这一点上持相同看法。他致信斯威尼称，“这种不准确且不负责任的言论不可避免地引起了苏格兰养老金领取者的担忧”，并敦促他纠正这一说法。
Findlay - who oddly enough agrees with Swinney about preserving the triple lock - wrote to him saying that "this inaccurate and irresponsible comment is inevitably causing concern to Scottish pensioners", calling for him to correct the record.
但在周一的采访中，这位首席部长坚称：“我对在议会所说的一切都予以支持。”
But in interviews on Monday the first minister insisted: "I stand by everything I said to parliament".
随后，他致信芬德利，解释了他为何认为养老金会出现“实际价值”上的削减，“与现有的三重保障政策相比”。
He then wrote to Findlay to explain how he believed there would be a "real terms" reduction in pensions "as compared to the existing triple lock policy".
斯威尼补充道：“我确信无需对议会记录进行任何更正。”斯威尼已将这一争议提交给他的独立顾问，他们有权决定是否调查是否存在违反部长行为准则的可能。顾问们可能会建议采取相应措施，例如向议会发表声明。
Swinney added: "I am satisfied that no correction to the parliamentary record is necessary." Swinney has flagged up the row to his independent advisers, who can decide to investigate potential breaches of the ministerial code. They could recommend action, such as a statement to parliament.
但最终，是否构成违规行为，斯威尼拥有最终决定权；是否需要采取任何行动，也由他自行决定。
Swinney would ultimately have the final say on whether there had been a breach, and it would be up to him to decide what action, if any, was required.
此前也曾有过类似的调查。尼古拉·斯特金和亚历克斯·萨尔蒙德均被独立顾问认定未误导议会。
There have been such probes before. Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond were both cleared of misleading parliament by independent advisers.
今年早些时候，安吉拉·康斯坦斯被认定违反了行为准则，但在顾问们认定这只是无心之失后，她仅受到口头警告。
Earlier this year Angela Constance was found to have breached the code but was just given a telling-off after the advisers concluded it was an inadvertent slip.
周二，斯威尼再次在议会提及这一问题。当时，他的一名后座议员提出了一个很有帮助的问题，使他得以以更谨慎措辞的方式表达自己的批评。
On Tuesday, Swinney brought up the issue in parliament again, when a helpful question from one of his backbenchers allowed him to offer a rather more carefully phrased version of his attack.
原本较为直白地称“我们将失去养老金”的说法，被替换为一种强调任何损失都是“与目前维持的三重保障机制相比”的表述。
The rather blunt phrasing about how "we are going to lose our pensions" was replaced by a formulation stressing that any loss was "compared with the current triple lock being maintained".
如果顾问们着手研究此事，斯威尼可能会指出，这是他在最早方便的时候试图根据部长行为准则修正议会记录的做法。这里有两个要点。
Should the advisers look into the matter, Swinney may point to that as his attempt to correct the parliamentary record at the earliest convenience, as the ministerial code requires. There are two points here.
第一，需要强调的是，在拟议的新制度下，养老金仍将继续上涨，只是可能不如三重保障机制下的增长速度快。
One is to stress that pensions would continue to rise under the proposed new system, just potentially not as fast as they would under the triple lock.
养老金不会从目前水平被削减——也不会有人完全“失去”养老金——但相较于如果维持三重保障机制的情况，养老金的增长幅度可能会小一些。
Pensions would not be cut from their present level - and nobody would "lose" their pension altogether - but they might not have gone up by as much as they would have done had the triple lock remained in place.
另一个要点是，如果按照伯纳姆的建议，筹集到的资金用于英格兰的社会护理，那么这笔钱实际上会回流到苏格兰议会（Holyrood）的预算中。
The other point is that if the money raised is spent on social care in England, as Burnham has suggested, money would actually flow back into Holyrood's budget.
这是因为权力下放制度的运作方式如此。包括卫生、教育、司法以及社会护理在内的多项事务，都属于苏格兰议会的责任范围。
This is because of the way devolution works. Various powers over issues including health, education, justice and, yes, social care are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.
当英国层面在这些事务领域支出资金时，苏格兰议会会根据人口比例获得相应份额，而苏格兰议员（MSPs）可以自行决定如何分配这笔资金。
When money is spent on those portfolios at a UK level, Holyrood is given a population-adjusted share of that sum, which MSPs can allocate as they see fit.
因此，任何在威斯敏斯特增加下放事务支出的政策，都会增加拨给苏格兰议会的“区块拨款”。
So any changes which increase spending on a devolved issue at Westminster will increase the "block grant" which goes to Holyrood.
例如，今年早些时候，英国政府宣布为有额外支持需求的在校学生提供数十亿英镑的额外资金。
For example, earlier this year the UK government announced billions of pounds in extra funding for school pupils with extra support needs.
由于教育事务属于下放权力范围，这一举措触发了向苏格兰议会的额外拨款——根据秋季预算修订案，今年拨款金额为5.33亿英镑，主要用于国家医疗服务体系（NHS）。
Education is devolved, so this triggered extra payments to Holyrood - £533m in the current year according to the autumn budget revision which was chiefly spent on the NHS.
因此，如果通过养老金改革筹集到额外资金，而这一举措直接导致英格兰社会护理支出增加，那么这应该会触发对苏格兰议会（Holyrood）拨款的增加。
So if extra funding was raised from pension changes and the direct result of this was increased spending on social care in England, that should trigger an increase in Holyrood's block grant.
苏格兰政府可以自由地将这笔资金用于养老金领取者——它有权提高现有福利水平或设立新的福利项目，事实上也确实通过养老金年龄相关的冬季燃料补贴等措施做到了这一点。
The Scottish government would be free to spend that money on pensioners - it has the power to top up benefits or set up new ones, and indeed does so with things like pension-age winter fuel payments.
如果这笔资金被用于完全由威斯敏斯特政府掌控的国防等领域，情况则略有不同。在这种情况下，苏格兰议会的拨款不会增加。
It would be a slightly different issue if the money was spent on something like defence, which is fully controlled at Westminster. In that case there would be no increase in Holyrood's funding.
斯威尼（Swinney）强调说：“我们当中没有人能够预见这些变化对拨款会产生怎样的影响。”
Swinney has insisted that "none of us can foresee what the implications of these changes would be for the block grant".
但总体而言，要预测2039年或2050年将会发生什么，确实非常困难。
But it is generally difficult to forecast what will be happening in the year 2039 or 2050.
要预测未来的收入或通货膨胀水平，以及这些变化对养老金意味着什么，同样充满挑战。
It is difficult to forecast what earnings or inflation might be, and what that would mean for pensions.
此外，要预测权力下放后的财政状况如何也十分困难——事实上，斯威尼希望到那时苏格兰已经实现独立。
And it is difficult to predict what the state of devolved finances would be - indeed Swinney hopes Scotland will be independent by then.
如果以2014年的公投运动为参考，那么围绕养老金的这类辩论，或许将在决定苏格兰能否实现独立方面起到关键作用。
If the 2014 campaign is anything to go by, then these kinds of debates about pensions could be instrumental in whether that happens or not.