No, of course I don't disbelieve you. However, the independence movement was not strong until after devolution. Labour was effectively a Labour fiefdom until very recently...and Labour was against Scotland being independent.The Norwegian Fund was only established in 1990 so regardless of how the money was spent, if you follow the Norwegian model then you still have a decade of spending before the fund is set up.
As for oil itself though, although in a Scottish context massive, in an overall UK Context it peaked in 1985 when the income was just under £30 Billion. Put into context, the UK Economy was worth over £500 Billion. In short, it would be a shot in the arm, but not life inducing to the UK economy. The only reason it was so important in otl was that Thatcher implemented such radical change to the economy in the 1980s and as bad as much of the hardship caused by her, without the oil it could have been worse.
It would turn an independent Scotland into the Switzerland of the north if you want to wank just part of Britain. Read the Government report on it if you disbelieve me. http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccronereport.pdf
My argument for an improved Britain would be joining Europe from the outset and shaping it as much as possible. If we accept our place is in Europe earlier, we could have done far better than we did.
I agree the UK should have joined the Common Market earlier and shaped it to our own needs. But that would probably have entailed the UK first joining the European Iron and Steel Community, which Labour knew the steelworkers would never accept.
Regrettably, I believe earlier UK accession to the Common Market was a non starter due to the UK political situation.
Last edited: