One year after the attack things will have stabilized to a massive extent can I would even go as far as saying that some amount of trade can even be restarted then. Portsmouth is still viable in the UK, so is most of the South West and a fair bit of other areas as well. The UK has plenty of coal and now plenty of spare workforce. It seems perfectly doable to kickstart coal production a year after the attack, even more so in the light of the fact that in 1984 a lot of mines were still in activity.
TTL 2010 will be grim in some ways but it seems likely that the 15 million or so British citizens left will eat their fill and once again be able to move around the country to a circa late 19th century level. Industrial production will likely restart a year after the attack in some places and while the factories left won't churn out iPods or MP3 players. They will be able to churn out suff like guns, locomotives, engines and lorries at the very least crude ones.
I think you're probably right in that the UK is lucky to have coal supplies, even though some of the disused mines are going to be tough to get operational again. Still it should be possible with sufficient man-power, especially if the authorities don't care about health and safety.
There should be enough machine tools surviving in small factories around the country to get light industry started again. Heavy industry is going to be tougher, but there again there is plenty of scrap metal to be salvaged in the cities. So yes, a late 19th century technology should be achievable.
As you say, the facilities won't exist to create anything like a modern electronics industry. Salvaging and repairing electronic equipment would become a major activity in it's own right. A working Sinclair Spectrum would be worth far more than it's weight in gold.
If by TTL 2010 the USSR is still completely destroyed, then NATO has won the war it is as simple as that! I guess then than Pyrrhic victory would have a whole new meaning ...
Britain is small enough, has a strong central authority and distinct borders, so it will probably survive as a country. In organisational terms, the large countries such as the USA and USSR are going to come off worse. Survival is going to give authority to smaller regional governments in both countries. While US States (or even smaller divisions) might pay lip service to the idea of a federal government, you can bet that if anything like the USA exists in 2010, it will be far more decentralised than it was before.
The USSR has an even worse situation with plenty of ethnic groups that will guard their new-found independance from any attempt to re-create the central authority. The closest historical comparison I can think of is the Thirty Years War, where the devestation basically destroyed the Holy Roman Empire and gave effective power to the various German Princes.
Cheers,
Nigel.