Regardless, I agree that getting fixated on the "renewable" label is not particularly productive. What matters is "zero-carbon".
If we want to get pedantic, there's a finite amount of fissile material. But then again solar isn't technically renewable either, since there's a finite amount of hydrogen in the sun.
I think it's a positive thing that one of the world's largest oil producers is moving away from fossil fuels and that they're being vocal about it.
We could do with more virtue from leading countries, and signalling about it.
That would be a positive thing indeed. However from all I can tell this is not at all what's happening: https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/11/14/norway-oil-c... https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/article/140747... https://bellona.org/news/fossil-fuels/2018-01-norways-new-oi...
I mean, afaik, they're not moving away from generating oil and selling it. Arguably given the SWF is based on oil production/extraction revenues the obvious conclusion is that they were over exposed and this dis-investment is more like sensible diversification.
But maybe that's just cynicism
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/19/business/norway-oil-field-cli...
In terms of hard numbers for Scotland, their carbon intensity is 59 gCO2/KWh (https://www.carbonintensity.org.uk/), which is actually pretty great. You can compare against other countries here - https://www.electricitymap.org. Here's the current breakdown of their electricity production:
Wind: 36.5%
Nuclear: 31.1%
Hydro: 16.7%
Gas: 13.5%
Biomass: 1.4%
So right now they are 52.2% renewable energy. Presuming they are running renewables to capacity, this low carbon intensity figure is actually being kept low due to the fact they are sourcing a third of their load from nuclear. Should the Scottish government phase out nuclear as they are currently planning (https://www.gov.scot/policies/nuclear-energy/), then we can expect this carbon intensity to rise as gas is used to pick up the base load when conditions for renewables aren't favourable.