Capella writes:

I don’t know how or if it’s possible but reporting on the consequences of being a colony would be interesting. We have no power over vital aspects of development and decision making. Something the MSM fails to notice. Jeffrey Sachs pointed out that DR Congo gets criticised for not running the country properly while the long history of imperial exploitation is forgotten. “What’s wrong with your country?” At the world cup a fan stood up dressed as Patrice Lumumba to remind the world that Western intelligence murdered their first democratically elected leader. With power over our resources we might have had a sovereign wealth fund like Norway.

This is a big question, beyond our current resourcing and time so I have used AI and the experience was both fascinating and revealing of the nature of AI. Let me know if you spot any misunderstandings in the AI response.

It’s first response was:

Norway does not “reveal” Scotland as a colony in any conventional historical, legal, or political sense. Scotland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom with its own devolved parliament (since 1999), legal system, education system, and significant policy autonomy in areas like health, justice, and some taxation. It sends MPs to the UK Parliament and participated in a 2014 independence referendum where a majority voted to remain in the union.

The term “colony” is sometimes used metaphorically in Scottish nationalist discourse to describe perceived economic or political dominance by “Westminster” or England. This draws on concepts like “internal colonialism” but is contested by historians and political analysts. Scotland was an independent kingdom that entered a negotiated incorporating union with England in 1707 (the Acts of Union). It retained distinct institutions and later contributed substantially to the British Empire as administrators, soldiers, traders, and settlers—not primarily as a subjugated territory.

That AI would first rely on mainstream establishment positions is not surprising so you have to try this kind iof question:

There are those who make the case that Scotland is essentially a colony. How have they answered my question?

To its credit, AI will, still, answer that fairly:

Proponents of the view that Scotland is “essentially a colony” (primarily Scottish nationalists, SNP supporters, and independence activists) answer your question by framing Norway as direct evidence of lost sovereignty and economic exploitation within the UK union.

They argue that the Norway comparison exposes Scotland’s subordinate status: a resource-rich territory whose wealth is controlled and directed by a larger power (Westminster/London) rather than benefiting its own people long-term. This is presented as a modern form of internal colonialism or resource extraction, where Scotland functions like a peripheral colony despite formal union structures.

Core Argument: Norway vs. Westminster on North Sea Oil

They highlight that Scotland and Norway discovered and developed North Sea oil and gas around the same time (late 1960s–1970s). Norway, as an independent sovereign state, nationalized key aspects of the industry, created a state-linked oil company, and—crucially—from 1990 onward—channeled surplus revenues into the Government Pension Fund Global (the “Oil Fund”). This fund now exceeds $2 trillion and is invested globally for future generations, funding schools, healthcare, pensions, jobs, and infrastructure while following strict fiscal rules to preserve capital.In contrast, they claim Westminster treated Scottish waters’ oil revenues as UK-wide resources. Taxes and profits flowed into the central Treasury and were spent on current consumption—such as tax cuts (especially in the 1980s), welfare, debt management, or London-centric projects—rather than saved. The famous 1970s SNP slogan “It’s Scotland’s Oil” is repeatedly invoked: the oil was found in waters off Scotland, extracted with Scottish labor and infrastructure, yet the wealth allegedly subsidized the rest of the UK while Scotland saw limited direct, lasting benefit.

Specific claims include:

• A 1974 UK government-commissioned report (sometimes cited as the McCrone report or similar analyses) allegedly showed Scotland would run chronic surpluses and have one of Europe’s strongest currencies if independent—benefits allegedly suppressed or downplayed.
• Without independence, Scotland “could have been embarrassingly rich” with its own Norway-style fund worth £1 trillion or more today.
• Scotland is portrayed as “the only significant oil-producing country” without control over its resources, making it a “colonial province” or “depressed appendage of England.” London is cast as the “imperial capital.”

This difference, they say, reveals colonial status because an independent Scotland (like Norway) would have retained full sovereignty over seabed resources, taxation, and investment policy. Within the union, revenues are centralized, decisions are made in Westminster (where Scotland is a minority), and benefits are diluted or redirected. Some extend this to decolonization rhetoric, comparing Scotland’s position to post-colonial states or even taking arguments to international forums like the UN.

The “Costs” They Identify

Norway is used to quantify the opportunity costs of Scotland’s status:

• Lost intergenerational wealth: No dedicated sovereign wealth fund means revenues were “squandered” rather than invested for long-term prosperity. Proponents contrast Norway’s stable funding for public services with Scotland’s reliance on UK transfers and higher notional fiscal deficits (per GERS figures, which they often cite).
• Policy misalignment: Energy decisions (pricing, licensing, transition) prioritize UK-wide or English interests, leading to claims that Scotland produces abundant clean power yet faces some of Europe’s higher bills.
• Economic underperformance relative to peers: Independent small nations like Norway (similar population size) achieved higher per-capita wealth through prudent resource management. Scotland’s oil boom coincided with deindustrialization in other sectors, which nationalists link to Westminster priorities.
• Broader exploitation narrative: Oil is one example of a pattern where Scotland’s resources and people support the larger state without equivalent return or autonomy—echoing historical claims of internal colonialism.

They extend the argument beyond oil to renewables and future energy: Scotland has vast potential (wind, etc.), but without full control, benefits are allegedly captured elsewhere, just as with hydrocarbons.

Context and Rhetoric

This framing appears consistently in SNP communications, independence campaign materials, social media, and pro-indy commentary. For instance, recent posts state variations of: “Scotland and Norway had the same North Sea opportunity. Norway invested it. Westminster wasted ours.” The 1970s “It’s Scotland’s Oil” campaign is presented as prescient proof that union denied Scotland the Norway path.

Some activists explicitly label Scotland a colony under UN-style criteria for self-determination or internal colonialism models (e.g., Michael Hechter’s core-periphery theory), arguing the union’s asymmetry and resource control fit the pattern despite devolution and the 2014 referendum.

The Norway comparison remains one of the most potent rhetorical tools in independence arguments precisely because it offers a tangible, successful small-nation benchmark. Whether it demonstrates “colonial status” depends on whether one accepts the premise of exploitative internal colonialism versus a voluntary (if asymmetric) union with democratic consent and ongoing devolution. The debate continues along these lines in Scottish politics.

Imagine a journalist working for establishment media answering my question. Could they, would they, have been so honest, resisting the temptation selectively bias the choice of sources and to edit the content so as to still undermine the argument?

You know the answer – no bl**dy way!