By John Robertson, Scottish Daily Mail
Alex Salmond was dealt a humiliating blow last night by a country that the SNP reveres as proof that an independent Scotland would flourish.
For decades, Nationalists have cited oil-rich Norway as a powerful example of how a separate Scottish state would fare after the break-up of the United Kingdom.
But now, for the first time, a senior Norwegian government minister has heaped ridicule on the claim that the Scandinavian country’s experience bolsters the case for Scottish independence.
Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store dismissed the SNP’s core claim, dating back to the 1970s, that Scotland would massively increase its wealth by ‘reclaiming’ North Sea oil reserves.
He expressed the growing anger in Norway over Mr Salmond’s repeated comparisons between the two countries – claiming they threatened to spoil Norway’s relations with the rest of the UK. He said: ‘I would be upset to think Norway’s experience has become a source of division or strife between friends in other countries.’
As the global financial crisis has worsened, Mr Salmond has tried to shore up the economic case for separatism by referring to Ireland, Iceland and Norway as the ‘Arc of Prosperity’. But recession in Ireland and the Icelandic banking meltdown have led critics to rename it the ‘Arc of Insolvency’.
Mr Store also undermined Nationalist claims that oil revenues could be used to bankroll Scotland as well as fund a £200 billion state pension fund similar to Norway’s. Very little oil and gas revenue goes into the Norwegian exchequer, he explained, as practically all profit goes into the pension fund. He said: ‘We don’t consume any of our gas, we export almost all of our production. The money is in a pension fund that will be used for our children and grandchildren.’
Mr Store said the state of industrial decline in which the UK found itself when North Sea oil production began in the 1970s was very different to Norway’s situation. He added: ‘Our social sector and structural system were ready for the big changes. We started with major investments in oil and gas in the 1970s and it was only in the late 1990s that it went into surplus.
The SNP’s argument for the feasibility of independence has long hinged on the claim Scotland would be richer if it could ‘reclaim’ North Sea oil. Mr Shore’s devastating rebuttal leaves that claim in tatters.
A member of a Centre-Left government that took power three years ago, Mr Store said comparisons between Norway and Scotland have some clear limitations. He added: ‘Norway has been an independent state for more than 100 years. We are integrated into the international community, from the UN to Nato, and Norway as a state entity relates to other states.’
He also accused Mr Salmond of misleading the public by praising Norway for ‘bailing out’ its banks – a claim he effectively dismissed as a lie.
The First Minister has repeatedly pointed to a £35billion ‘bank bailout’ by the Norwegian government as evidence that smaller European countries are able to cope in the current economic climate. But Mr Store said the action taken by his government was completely different from Westminster’s £37billion bailout of RBS, HBOS and Lloyds TSB.
He said: ‘We have a financial sector that serves us domestically, with some international outreach. In Scotland, it is different. HBOS and RBS are major institutions with a major international outreach.
‘The Norwegian banks from the outset held a very high standard and the Norwegian government has not bailed out any banks.’
Last night, Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy said: ‘It is now clear that Alex Salmond’s North Sea bubble has burst.’
A Scottish Labour spokesman said: ‘Alex Salmond has hidden behind the ‘Arc of Prosperity’ for too long. Iceland is now in recession. Irish families are facing tax hikes and cuts in health and education, and now the Norwegian government is disowning Salmond’s comparisons.’
An SNP spokesman said: ‘Self-evidently, Norway and Scotland are different countries but we are both enormously energy rich Northern European nations, in terms of renewables as well as oil.
Independence has enabled the Norwegians to make the most of their opportunities and exactly the same applies to Scotland.’
© 2008 Associated Newspapers Ltd.
Matt Qvortrup: numpty.
5 minutes ago



Hat-tip for that to Jim Millar, btw. More at the Telegraph.
Jeremy Purvis, Scottish Liberal Democrat finance spokesman, said: “Alex Salmond will be re-programming his economic sat-nav to find a new country to emulate. This slap-down from Norway should be the signal that he now needs to spend more time on policies and budgets that he is responsible for and give up the armchair punditry.”
There is more on the substantive differences between Norway and Scotland in this letter to the Scotsman.
Also relevant to Mr Støre’s comments on British/Norwegian relations: “The Scottish Government has been accused of trying to undermine the work of the British-Irish Council”, according to the Press Association.
"North Sea Bubble" - Jim Murphy. Wish I'd thought of that.
I see the Nat reaction is that the Norwegians don't know what they're talking about. As I said earlier, typical Nat arrogance that they know best not just for Scotland but for everywhere else too.
I see from your PA link that the greatest living Scotsman* is coming in for dogs abuse on The Scotsman forum for having the temerity to live in what the Nats call "deepest engerland" (Manchester!!!)and enjoy the lifestyle that half a century of hard work and dedication has deservedly brought him.
* (Note for nats: I refer to the only Scot to win the European Cup twice as a manager and a man who spends time and money on youth facilities in the area where he grew up and who pays his full whack to the Exchequer, not a guy who won an Oscar for an execrable Irish accent and prefers the Caribbean to his native land.)
Two iffy quotes does not a ridicule make.
But then again, the general motive of unionists is 'follow the leader - disengage brain'.
So no surprise you jumped on this article SU.
As a Blog this norway article is an Exocet blows the S.N.P. Clean out of the water.
your a real patriot to Scotland and Great Britain.
BSH: It is, unfortunately, a simple matter of record that Norway’s proven oil reserves, production and revenues are all in the region of double the UK’s. So downplay and deflect all you like, but Morris is right: the impact of Mr Støre’s intervention cannot be underestimated.
Morris: Thank you. I greatly appreciate that comment.
Norway sets the record straight
Sir,
The article "Salmond Slapped down by Norway Minister" in the Daily Mail on 29 October contained several incorrect and misleading statements attributed to Norway's Foreign Minister, Jonas Gahr Støre.
Firstly, there is no "growing anger in Norway" over comparisons made between Scotland and Norway during the debate in the United Kingdom against the backdrop of the current global financial crisis.
Secondly, no accusations have been made by Mr Støre against Mr Salmond, as alleged in the article. In the interview, the Foreign Minister merely pointed out factual similarities and differences between the challenges presently faced by Scotland and Norway. Inferring from this that Mr Støre is of the view that Mr Salmond has in any way lied or mislead the public, is simply incorrect.
In short, the Norwegian Foreign Minister did not intend to criticise either side in this debate, which is a domestic political discussion. What he strongly emphasised in the interview with the Daily Mail and which, sadly, was simply omitted from the article, was his sincere appreciation of the warm ongoing relationship between Scotland and Norway.
Yours sincerely,
Bjarne Lindstrøm
Ambassador of Norway
Damage limitation, BSH. All perfectly standard procedure.
I suppose you'll be posting the Norwegian ministers letter in full to allow all those who stumble upon your blog the chances to make their own minds up before reading your interpretation of events?
Perhaps the true position of Norway should be on your front page rather than the lies and spin of the British
press that you have so eagerly fallen for hook line and sinker. Your hatred of Scotland appears to know no bounds.
Dear ,
with reference to your e-mail to Bjørn Jahnsen at the Norwegian Foreign Minister's press office, pleased be advised that the attached response letter from ambassador Bjarne Lindstrøm was sent to the Scottish Daily Mail this morning. We very much hope this will appear in tomorrow's edition of the newspaper in order to avoid further misunderstandings.
Kind regards,
Stein Iversen
Stein Iversen
Minister Counsellor
Head of Press, Information & Cultural Affairs
Royal Norwegian Embassy
25 Belgrave Square,
London SW1X 8QDWork
(+44) 020 7591 5521Mob.
(+44) 0777 55 24 737
sti@mfa.no http://www.norway.org.uk/
Sir,
The article "Salmond Slapped down by Norway Minister" in the Daily Mail on 29 October contained several incorrect and misleading statements attributed to Norway's Foreign Minister, Jonas Gahr Støre.
Firstly, there is no "growing anger in Norway" over comparisons made between Scotland and Norway during the debate in the United Kingdom against the backdrop of the current global financial crisis.
Secondly, no accusations have been made by Mr Støre against Mr Salmond, as alleged in the article. In the interview, the Foreign Minister merely pointed out factual similarities and differences between the challenges presently faced by Scotland and Norway. Inferring from this that Mr Støre is of the view that Mr Salmond has in any way lied or mislead the public, is simply incorrect.
In short, the Norwegian Foreign Minister did not intend to criticise either side in this debate, which is a domestic political discussion. What he strongly emphasised in the interview with the Daily Mail and which, sadly, was simply omitted from the article, was his sincere appreciation of the warm ongoing relationship between Scotland and Norway.
Yours sincerely,
Bjarne Lindstrøm
Ambassador of Norway
Traquir
Repeating the Norwegian Ambo's letter doesn't make it any less of an inevitable piece of diplomatic face-saving. Mr Støre’s remarks are no less true for having breached the standard protocol.
And as for your "hatred of Scotland" claim, I would make two points: that the SNP isn't Scotland and that disagreement - except perhaps in your mind - isn't the same as hatred.
I'll repeat once again for good measure.
"I suppose you'll be posting the Norwegian ministers letter in full to allow all those who stumble upon your blog the chances to make their own minds up before reading your clearly incorrect interpretation of events?"
October 30, 2008 2:28 PM bsh, your " ..... who stumble upon your blog ....."
I tried to stumble onward into yours, empty space, nothing of substance.
I see you were very quick and eager to post the latest British media bias, but seem somewhat tardy to
rectify these lies - double standards perhaps or are you just too busy ?
2007 data from BP.
Oil production:
UK 1.636 million barrels/day
Norway 2.556
Oil reserves (proved):
UK 3.6 billion barrels
Norway 8.2
Gas production:
UK 7 trillion cubic feet
Norway 8.7
Gas reserves (proved):
UK: 14.55 trillion cubic feet
Norway 104.57
It could be argued that there are further reserves beyond the "proved" category, but this of course applies to Norway too.
In monetary terms, even if you bend the SNP-managed GERS numbers as far as you can in a pro-independence direction (as has been done by Niall Aslen) you still end up with a tiny, £2-5bn surplus. That's at current levels of oil price. And remember also that an "independent" Scotland would inherit its share of the (sadly huge) UK debt.
We can accept that Scotland could function as an independent state. However the notion that it would suddenly turn into a Norway-style petro-state with a vast "oil fund" is a dangerous mirage.
Sir,
The article "Salmond Slapped down by Norway Minister" in the Daily Mail on 29 October contained several incorrect and misleading statements attributed to Norway's Foreign Minister, Jonas Gahr Støre.
Firstly, there is no "growing anger in Norway" over comparisons made between Scotland and Norway during the debate in the United Kingdom against the backdrop of the current global financial crisis.
Secondly, no accusations have been made by Mr Støre against Mr Salmond, as alleged in the article. In the interview, the Foreign Minister merely pointed out factual similarities and differences between the challenges presently faced by Scotland and Norway. Inferring from this that Mr Støre is of the view that Mr Salmond has in any way lied or mislead the public, is simply incorrect.
In short, the Norwegian Foreign Minister did not intend to criticise either side in this debate, which is a domestic political discussion. What he strongly emphasised in the interview with the Daily Mail and which, sadly, was simply omitted from the article, was his sincere appreciation of the warm ongoing relationship between Scotland and Norway.
Yours sincerely,
Bjarne Lindstrøm
Ambassador of Norway
The last paragraph is in diplomatic speak akin of a kiss in the mouth to Alex Salmond russioan style.
You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
Why all the repetition of the ambassador’s letter? Has a direction gone out from CyberNat Central to spam it around? ;-)
The letter was a diplomatic inevitability. It criticises the Daily Mail' editorialising, insofar as it might cause Norway embarrassment, but in no way negates Mr Støre’s actual remarks.
Blogger Stonemason said...
Correct, because I don't have one!
A couple of quick points:
1. O’Neill has posted various of Mr Støre’s comments which Mr Lindstrøm’s letter didn’t even attempt to address. It defies belief that Calum Cashley, Richard Thomson etc have the brassneck to claim that the letter invalidates Mr Støre’s analysis.
2. I just scanned some of yesterday’s newspaper forums. Some of the CyberNats’ attempts to contrive excuses are hilarious. Here’s my favourite, from the perennially misguided Jackie Priest: “the norwegian minister in quesiton is a memebr of Norway's Labour party whoi have links with the British Labour party and is obviously doing what he has been asked by the Labour sleazebags in Britain.”
Now, about Mr Støre’s oil fund comments. To save time, I’ll just edit part of an earlier post.
The SNP said in a November 2006 press release that their oil fund would, within ten years, grow to £90 billion and then produce annual investment revenues of £5.5 billion. That corresponds to a 6.1% return on capital and would require the allocation of around £6.6 billion per year for the first ten years after independence.
But we don’t have £6.6 billion going spare. GERS 2007, published under this Scottish administration, found a fiscal deficit for Scotland of £2.7 billion, including a similar geographic allocation of North Sea revenues to Scotland as might occur under independence. Diverting a further £6.6 billion would give us an annual deficit of around 10% of GDP, which is obviously impossible. And that’s before our per capita share of UK national debt! It’s a circle which, however hard nationalists might close their eyes and wish, simply couldn’t be squared.
Now consider this section of the Daily Mail article: “Mr Store also undermined Nationalist claims that oil revenues could be used to bankroll Scotland as well as fund a £200 billion state pension fund similar to Norway’s. Very little oil and gas revenue goes into the Norwegian exchequer, he explained, as practically all profit goes into the pension fund.”
Sound familiar? And that’s with twice as much oil and I don’t even know how many times more gas.
See also this oil fund critique by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions.
I'll repeat once again as you have yet to reply to this statement.
"I suppose you'll be posting the Norwegian ministers letter in full to allow all those who stumble upon your blog the chances to make their own minds up before reading your clearly incorrect interpretation of events?"
What "ministers letter", BSH? I was under the impression that the Foreign Minister had given an interview to the Mail and the Ambassador had sent a letter. If there's another letter which I haven't seen, feel free to post it.
Oh dear, the statistics argument again about the deficit.
Lets look at what I posted in reply to your figures on Tom Harris blog which ignore the fact that the UK also runs at a deficit...
Lets do some real research. Lets not waste time with such inherent nonsense as ‘The majority of Scottish people do not support independence’. We can twist and turn on that all day and get no-where.
If were going to talk about the ’spending deficts’ of countries lets look at Scotland (part of the UK and lets not pretend independent) and the UK as a whole.
Scotland
2004-05: £4,722m
2005-06: £1,490m
2006-07: £2,652m
UK
2004-05: £19,800m
2005-06: £33,500m
2006-07: £49,500m
Lets break that down
Scotland/UK Deficit (%)
2004-05: 23.85%
2005-06: 4.5%
2006-07: 5.36%
Over the three years - 8.6%
Scottish Population as % of UK - 8.4%
A trifling difference Mr. Unionist. Now I admit that perhaps over time we may see a very different view, over 10 years/100 years/whatever, the point being, that in the end everything balances out and is ‘ok’. So bearing this in mind will the sky fall down if Scotland is independent ‘no’.
There are lies, damned lies and statistics?
There’s no easy way to say this, Brian. Your economic illiteracy is of such jaw-dropping proportions that I doubt that I’ll be able to deal with it.
Firstly, the only reason your 8.6% figure is so close to the population proportion is that you’ve included two years when oil prices were uncharacteristically high. Run the calculation for the previous five or ten years and you’ll see a radically different picture. Then use the average of a few projections of how low oil is likely to fall next year as the global recession really bites and repeat the estimate. Get my point?
Now, UK debt. One outcome of independence negotiations would probably be that a spinoff Scotland would have to service our per capita share of the then total UK government debt. So you’re not comparing like with like. The £9bn or £10bn annual fiscal deficit which would result from the creation of an oil fund would be in addition to the expense of servicing that ex-UK debt. Bear in mind that the EU requires at most a 3% deficit.
BSH
Interesting figures. They look more or less in line with my view.
In fact I would be more generous than that - with a geographic share of oil&gas revenue (83% rising to90%) Scotland is more or less balanced, to a resolution of +/- £5bn. (And no doubt there will be a surplus for 2007-8 and 2008-9, given the level of oil prices.)
So have never seen the sky falling down, but I also cannot see how any magic "oil fund" comes into existence, since a per capita share of the UK Debt would need to be paid off first.
And, of course, the oil & gas is in decline...
Fair comment, sm753, except that +/- £5bn is 5% or 6% of Scottish GDP, so not what I would call "more or less balanced".
The UK Treasury does not classify UKCS tax take as part of Scotland.
They cleverly decoupled that when they move the north-sea officially belonging to Scotland north of Fife and gave everything south to England when they created the Scottish Parliament.
They then put the oil and gas take into the 'general' series of numbers.
As I say, lies, damned lies and statistics.
So you'll be publishing the Norwegian ministers letter as a correction to your post then SU?
Oh dear.
The way in which UK Treasury accounts are structured (using “extra-regio” as an accounting device when the split isn’t clear-cut) is of no relevance to this discussion. GERS is a National Statistics publication prepared by Scottish Government statisticians, and in the latest edition oil and gas receipts were included using various different assumptions, including the geographic share as per Kemp & Stephen.
And your claim that water “belonging to Scotland” has been given to England is even more ridiculous. There was no maritime boundary prior to devolution, and the SNP’s claim that the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 established one is nonsense. Have you tried reading it instead of accepting nationalist propaganda at face value? The boundary for purposes of delineating the area in which devolved powers would apply was drawn using the “median lines” method, as per the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Part 2, Article 15 which governs international borders. As an independentist, how could you possibly complain about that?!
It defies belief that Calum Cashley, Richard Thomson etc have the brassneck to claim that the letter invalidates Mr Støre’s analysis.
How tedious. The letter from the Norwegian Ambassador invalidates much of the Daily Mail story which you have reproduced. For the avoidance of doubt, I did not say anywhere that it invalidated Mr Støre’s analysis.
I trust therefore that you’ll have the good grace to acknowledge your error in this regard.
I'm happy to take your clarification at face value, Richard. It's certainly true that that the Norwegian Ambassador's focus was the Daily Mail's editorial slant rather than the direct quotations by their Foreign Minister.
Ha ha! Here's the next thrilling instalment. The SNP are now claiming that Jim Murphy is “attacking" Ireland and Norway, has “caused a diplomatic incident with Norway” and that despite having half Norway’s oil “Scotland has every opportunity as an independent nation to deliver similar benefits as Norway has secured”. They just don’t know when to stop digging, do they? What a complete joke!
Now, where’s this Norwegian minister’s letter, Brian? Is he concerned that loose lips sink ships? Or just for his own career?!
This is just classic. I’m loving every minute! :-)
"Fair comment, sm753, except that +/- £5bn is 5% or 6% of Scottish GDP, so not what I would call "more or less balanced"."
Well, SU, as they say: a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money...
It is astonishing and sobering that more or less all the oil & gas revenue, even if apportioned to Scotland on a geographic basis, is being eaten by our bloated public sector. And that it's still a bit shabby.
Just for the record, here's more on this story from the Times and Herald.
Some CyberNats are now trying to claim that the ambassador's letter demonstrates that the Daily Mail published a false story. That spin obviously ignores various direct quotes which were in no way subject to the Mail's editorial slant. For example:
* Comparisons between Norway and Scotland have “some clear limitations”.
* Infrastructure development meant that it took the Norwegian oil industry 20+ years to generate a surplus.
* Even in Norway, very little such oil and gas revenue makes it into the exchequer. (The obvious implication is that even if a proportionally smaller futures fund was to be to be established here, we couldn’t rely on such revenues to remain in fiscal balance.)
* Direct quote: “the Norwegian government has not bailed out any banks”. For obvious diplomatic reasons the Norwegian Ambassador is duty-bound to downplay and indeed deny the implication of that remark, but the fact remains that it runs counter to Alex Salmond’s reported version of events.
To be more explicit on that last point:
* Scotsman report: “Mr Salmond said Norway ... had been able to come up with a £35 billion rescue package for its banks…”
* Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre: “the Norwegian government has not bailed out any banks.”
* Ambassador Bjarne Lindstrøm: Claiming that “Mr Støre is of the view that Mr Salmond has in any way lied or mislead the public, is simply incorrect.”
So who is right? Did Norway bail out any banks: yes or no?
If yes, Salmond is right. If no, it’s Støre who is correct. But one thing’s for sure: Lindstrøm’s a diplomat. ;-)
Haven't read the above comment. Don't want to as I wish to retain a will to live.
I especially liked:
‘I would be upset to think Norway’s experience has become a source of division or strife between friends in other countries.’
There's a sense of self-depreciation and humility in Scandinavian culture, which the Norwegians take to whole new levels. I spoke to someone whose mother had bought a new Volvo (who'd want to buy Norwegian?), and was required to dent it so not to be thought flaunting her wealth.
Aksel Sandemose codified this as Jante's Law:
. You shall not think you are special.
. You shall not believe you are smarter than others.
. You shall not believe you are wiser than others.
. You shall not behave as if you are better than others.
. You shall not believe that you know more than others.
. You shall not believe that you can fix things better than others.
. You shall not laugh at others.
. You shall not believe that others care about you.
. You shall not believe that you can teach others anything.
Thinking one is entitled to financial success and international prestige just because one is Scottish is a major stumbling block.
(The artist formerly known as G-Simonardottir.)