Scotland and the Norwegian Model
Before you start:
Explore and explain the following concepts
together with a partner:
Devolution and devolved assembly
Single-issue political party
Government expenditure
Welfare state
Nuclear deterrent
Natural resources
What role has Norway played in the SNP’s argumentation
for Scottish independence?
In the elections to the Scottish Parliament on 5 May 2011, the Scottish National Party
(SNP) secured an outright majority of votes, and could subsequently form its first
majority government since the setting up of the devolved assembly in 1999. Shortly
after the results were clear, the SNP’s leader and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond
announced plans to hold a referendum on Scottish independence in Scotland within
the lifetime of the new parliament. This marked the, arguably, greatest triumph for
the party and its current leader to date, because the SNP is – for all practical purposes
– a single-issue party. It exists primarily to obtain Scottish independence from the
United Kingdom, by which we mean a fully independent Scottish state. Through
the election victory, the question of Scottish independence had seemingly been
placed firmly on the political agenda, and would now have to be addressed. One
aspect of the SNP’s quest for inependence has been the frequent references made to
Norway, and this essay aims to explore this element of their policies: What role has
Norway played in the SNP’s argumentation for Scottish independence over time, and
how important is the Norwegian comparison today? We will seek to address these
questions by, first looking at the SNP’s overall political strategy for independence,
and then what role the Norwegian model has played in this.
1
Scotland and the Norwegian Model
Differences between Scotland and the UK
The SNP’s arguments for independence have traditionally been marked by
certain general and consistent features. It has always been in the interest of the
party’s overall political objective to emphasise differences between Scotland
as a whole on the one side, and the rest of the UK or Britain on the other. Lines
of division running through Scotland, or whatever similarities there might be
between parts of Scotland and parts of England for example (or, indeed, the
whole of Scotland and the rest of the UK), have been down-played in favour of
stressing the uniqueness of Scotland within the British Isles. One element in this
approach has been a tendency to stress Scotland’s position as a small country
in the World, and then contrast this with Britain’s position as a medium-sized
state, still harbouring great power ambitions. Another element has been the
use of other small countries as models for an independent Scotland, and this is
where the Norwegian model comes into play.
It’s the economy, stupid!
The future of the Scottish economy has tended to take a central place in
discussions about Scottish independence. Unionists have emphasised the risks
involved in giving up the alleged security provided by the financial resources of
the British state, arguing that the economy of an independent Scotland faces
an uncertain future. In response to this, the SNP has developed an economic
argument which, to a large extent at least, rests on the view that the oil in
the British sector of the North Sea “belongs” to Scotland. According to SNP
estimates (which have not been confirmed by anyone else), approximately 90%
of the oil and gas-reserves currently in the British sector of the North Sea would
come in under Scottish territorial waters, in the case of Scotland becoming
independent. The slogan “It’s Scotland’s oil!” was adopted already in the 1970s,
and this view has given rise to a whole raft of economic arguments. First of all,
securing all the flowing income from the oil reserves for Scotland alone would
provide the Scottish economy with a safety margin, or “cushion”, for the critical
stages of a transfer to full independence. Second, it would mean that Scotland
could easily handle its share of the British national debt, which it would be
expected to take on. And in any case, if the oil is Scottish, it is Scotland which
currently subsidises the rest of the UK, and not the other way around (as official
statistics on tax returns and government expenditure would suggest). The
Scottish economy is not now, and would not in the future, have to be held up
by English crutches.
Moreover, the oil-argument has given rise to the main comparison with
Norway. Unlike the UK, the SNP argues, Norway has not “wasted” its oil
resources on wars and unnecessary military equipment (the reference here
being to the Falklands War in 1982, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
the British nuclear deterrent). Instead, the Norwegian authorities have used
the revenues raised from oil on building a solid welfare state first, and then
2
Scotland and the Norwegian Model
deposited surplus funds into the State Oil Fund from 1996 onwards. The idea of
emulating Norway emerged already in the 1970s, when many SNP politicians looked
upon the Norwegian welfare model, funded with oil money, as a viable approach to
solving Scotland’s extensive social problems. In more recent years, it is the oil fund
which has attracted the main interest of the SNP. As late as in 2010, the senior SNP
politician Angus Robertson held that: “Norway’s first payment into its oil fund was
only £195 million, back in 1996. The lesson here is that we can start small, but we
must start”. In other words, Scotland may be late in the day, but that does not mean
that it is too late.
Similarities between Scotland and Norway
In addition to the all-important oil argument and the desire to emulate the
Norwegian welfare model, the SNP has repeatedly pointed to other similarities
between Norway and Scotland, particularly concerning natural resources more in
general. Both countries are rich in the same or similar type of natural resources, the
SNP has claimed, and central Norwegian industries such as fisheries, fish-farming
and forestry could form a similar backbone in the Scottish economy in the future,
as they do in the Norwegian economy today. More recently, the use of renewable
energy resources such as wind power has been emphasised as an area where the
two countries have a lot in common, and where there is potential for collaboration in
future development.
In conclusion, the use of Norway as a model has thus been a lasting feature of SNP
argumentation over time, and important to central parts of the party’s policies.
Whether it will actually be of any practical use, if and when the Scots do decide to
take that leap into the unknown which independence would be, is of course, another
matter altogether.
Atle L. Wold
(Angus Robertson, Why vote SNP (Biteback Publishing, London, 2010), p. 24.)
3
Scotland and the Norwegian Model
Exercises
A: Study the content of the article:
1. Who are the SNP, and why might they be called ‘separatists’?
2. Why do you think a substantial minority (at present) of Scots want independence for
Scotland from the UK?
3. Why do you think the SNP uses Norway as their preferred model for an independent
Scotland?
4. Why do you think economic arguments have been so important in discussions between
separatists and unionists in Scotland ?
B: Study the structure of the article:
Examine the introduction.
1. How does it start/what kind of point is made at the beginning?
2. Does it state clearly which question the article seeks to answer, or:
what is the topic for investigation here?
3. Does the introduction provide a disposition for the main part of the text and, if so, what
does it say about the structure of the article?
Examine the main part of the article.
1. Make a list of the main points presented in the text. Use keywords.
2. Academic discussions such as this are usually organised on the argument – evidence model.
The author will first make a point or present an argument and then bring forward factual
material which either supports or undermines the argument. Can you find examples of this
in the text?
3. Extra difficult! What do you think are the main differences between a thematic disussion (as
in this article), and a chronological narrative?
Examine the conclusion.
1. Where does the conclusion begin, and what – in essence – does it say?
2. How does the conclusion relate to the introduction, as well as to the main part of the text?
4