AHC: Post 1945, wank Britain without wanking the British Empire.

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.
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.
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:
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 Scotland is a "Labour fiefdom" shtick is a bit of a myth actually. Labour had the most votes in Scottish elections between 1964-2015 and the most seats 59-15, but in terms of vote share in the majority of elections, Labour averaged less than 40% of the Scottish vote during this period. The reason they dominated the seats was a combination of the divided Tory/SNP/Liberal-Lib Dem opposition to them leading to a lower required vote share to win Scottish seats than English ones and the cast-iron grip they had on Glasgow and parts of the industrial central belt.

In the October 1974 election, the SNP came within 6%(a 3% swing) of overtaking Labour, finishing second in 42 Scottish seats(out of 72). Had events conspired even slightly more poorly for Labour, Labour may have been destroyed in Scotland in this election leading to an almost inevitable 1970s style Indyref.

Likewise, under Margaret Thatcher, the Tories won most votes in the 1979 European elections. Labour became complacent in Scotland but it was misplaced as the vote share never justified the complacency.
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.
The Herbert Morrison quote is overplayed.

There was a degree of post-war arrogance on the part of the British government(understandably so as we had just been a major part of an alliance to defeat the most evil empire in modern history) and when the situation being too adverse to cope with became apparent, the French didn't want us. Britain joining would probably require a Suez-style humiliation shortly after the war, but this could have been a good thing as a whole for the entire nation in the long run.

If we had helped create it, the insane vote on 23/6 would be less likely to have happened and within Europe we would have been better off. It may have helped British industry and helped profoundly in terms of cultural changes. It's not the way it's worked out sadly, but it would have been a great thing.
 
The Scotland is a "Labour fiefdom" shtick is a bit of a myth actually. Labour had the most votes in Scottish elections between 1964-2015 and the most seats 59-15, but in terms of vote share in the majority of elections, Labour averaged less than 40% of the Scottish vote during this period. The reason they dominated the seats was a combination of the divided Tory/SNP/Liberal-Lib Dem opposition to them leading to a lower required vote share to win Scottish seats than English ones and the cast-iron grip they had on Glasgow and parts of the industrial central belt.

In the October 1974 election, the SNP came within 6%(a 3% swing) of overtaking Labour, finishing second in 42 Scottish seats(out of 72). Had events conspired even slightly more poorly for Labour, Labour may have been destroyed in Scotland in this election leading to an almost inevitable 1970s style Indyref.

Likewise, under Margaret Thatcher, the Tories won most votes in the 1979 European elections. Labour became complacent in Scotland but it was misplaced as the vote share never justified the complacency.

The Herbert Morrison quote is overplayed.

There was a degree of post-war arrogance on the part of the British government(understandably so as we had just been a major part of an alliance to defeat the most evil empire in modern history) and when the situation being too adverse to cope with became apparent, the French didn't want us. Britain joining would probably require a Suez-style humiliation shortly after the war, but this could have been a good thing as a whole for the entire nation in the long run.

If we had helped create it, the insane vote on 23/6 would be less likely to have happened and within Europe we would have been better off. It may have helped British industry and helped profoundly in terms of cultural changes. It's not the way it's worked out sadly, but it would have been a great thing.
Yes, you are right; Labour THOUGHT Scotland was a fiefdom. Personally, had I been Scottish I would have voted for independence in the referendum, and damn the "economic" calculations. Those who wish to govern themselves usually make it work.
I'm not sure you're right about the UK joining the ISC; the steelworkers would probably not have accepted it. Possibly if someone like Robens had been involved it could have happened....which then goes onto a Robens as Labour leader/PM thread.
With regard to a UK humiliation immediately post war, the only one I can think of would be an attempt to hold India...but that was not the policy of either party.
As for 23/6, the arrogance of our ruling elites is to blame for that in my view; it has given the shock to the system the Scottish referendum so nearly did.
 
What exactly was Churchill's attitude to the nascent EEC? Both sides claimed him as their own in the recent EU membership referendum which has muddied the waters a fair bit.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Stop the welfare state, that money should be invested in industries and infrastructure. Only selective nationalisation, but I think that just private firms supported by state intervention in things like R&D or M&A (like the forming of ICI or English Electric during the interwar period), but with export discipline imposed (including export to European market) (prominent examples are Hyundai and Posco in South Korea), because you will have to pay money to compensate for the owners.
 
Stop the welfare state
Rubbish. How to accentuate absolute poverty in parts of the nation, especially amongst the old-aged and disabled, especially in cities which were bombed out where social housing was vital. This would be incredibly evil and callous.
 
What exactly was Churchill's attitude to the nascent EEC? Both sides claimed him as their own in the recent EU membership referendum which has muddied the waters a fair bit.
"We are with Europe, but not of Europe." He did support a United Europe, but thought the Commonwealth was more important to the UK. If there were no Commonwealth links I suspect he would have been pro-European in a UK sense, but this is speculation.
 
Stop the welfare state
Rubbish. How to accentuate absolute poverty in parts of the nation, especially amongst the old-aged and disabled, especially in cities which were bombed out where social housing was vital. This would be incredibly evil and callous.
It would also have lost you the election and therefore ended any of your ability to develop industries and infrastructure projects...
 
"We are with Europe, but not of Europe." He did support a United Europe, but thought the Commonwealth was more important to the UK. If there were no Commonwealth links I suspect he would have been pro-European in a UK sense, but this is speculation.
Could you have made a EEC including the Commonwealth ? (or at least parts of it)
Was the French empire not included in the EEC? (even if its much smaller in size)
If GB had lead the creation from 45, could it not have got large parts of the commonwealth inside? That does though probably rule out Canada (to close to USA, and the South American trade)

Unfortunately this would be effectively a very large closed trading block that might get rather bad reception by the US so say good by to loans and convertibility...
 
Rubbish. How to accentuate absolute poverty in parts of the nation, especially amongst the old-aged and disabled, especially in cities which were bombed out where social housing was vital. This would be incredibly evil and callous.
You've got to do both! In fact, as I understand conventional economics, they dovetail.

Any policy which increases discretionary income to currently low-income persons builds the overall economy, because this money is spent more readily and more fully than money held by middle-income persons.
 
Could you have made a EEC including the Commonwealth ? (or at least parts of it)
Was the French empire not included in the EEC? (even if its much smaller in size)
If GB had lead the creation from 45, could it not have got large parts of the commonwealth inside? That does though probably rule out Canada (to close to USA, and the South American trade)

Unfortunately this would be effectively a very large closed trading block that might get rather bad reception by the US so say good by to loans and convertibility...

Yes, I believe their was a plan for parts of Europe to join th commonwealth- commonwealth plan g I think it was called. The trouble was of course, geography, back then it was not economically feasible for both Australia, India and Norway to be in the same area. Their was probably too much inequality between countries too. I think this or something like it maybe what the government want post Brexit, with free trade deals being discussed th Australia and New Zealand, as well as being economically integrated with the eu. Whether it's more feasible now remains to be seen.
 
List by the World Bank (2015)
Nominal GDP/GDP per capita/POP
3
23px-Flag_of_Japan.svg.png
Japan 4,123,258 32,477 127,110,047
4
23px-Flag_of_Germany.svg.png
Germany 3,355,772 41,221 82,175,700
5
23px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png
United Kingdom 2,848,755 43,733 65,110,000
AH UK minimum 4,123,258 63,327 65,110,000

That is a very big dip for Japan considering they were between $5-6T less than 5 years ago. It is like the recession in the 1990s.

Maybe if Japan keeps losing another $2T in a couple of years.
 
Stop the welfare state, that money should be invested in industries and infrastructure. Only selective nationalisation, but I think that just private firms supported by state intervention in things like R&D or M&A (like the forming of ICI or English Electric during the interwar period), but with export discipline imposed (including export to European market) (prominent examples are Hyundai and Posco in South Korea), because you will have to pay money to compensate for the owners.
What precisely do you mean by the "Welfare State"?
Some social spending was essential, such as housing. The NHS was badly designed...and remains so. Pensions were essential too....
Which bits of what we got would you not implement?
 
Top