UK remains the #3 Power

The UK remained the number 3 world power until the 1960s. What if the UK (not an Imperial Federation) had remained as such?

This probably requires a higher population and a stronger economy. Much of Britain's economic malaise was self-imposed.

-Britain became somewhat protectionist after the war, leading to domestic industries being less efficient
-Sterling convertibility was very damaging to the UK
-Avoid sterling convertibility and the associated currency crises
-Have the US just forgive the war debts of Britain (perhaps in exchange for decolonization)
-Keep Britain from propping up failing domestic industries
-Have a more liberal immigration policy
-More investment in areas like computing (Thatcher cut this IIRC)
-Rootes buying Volkswagen when it was proposed (giving the UK a strong auto-industry perhaps)
-Holding on to a few more overseas territories and either giving them parliamentary representation or have them have self-government like the OTL overseas territories. Nothing major, just little places like Malta, Sierra Leone, Andaman islands, etc.

A larger population would also be a necessity. A stronger economy would mean less emigration and more immigration. The British would also need to be more liberal on immigration.

If the UK had a population of around 88 million and a present-day GDP per capita of ~48,000 (like the Netherlands) that'd mean the country would comparable to Japan economically.

I'm not trying to have the UK be a third superpower, just a much stronger country relative to OTL.
 

Anderman

Donor
Eben with the GDP of Japan the UK would be a very distant no 3 power. But with more money the UK could found at least some cool aviation projects like the VC 7 or the Hawker p.1121:)
 
Britain does have a licence to act overtly on the international stage after WW2 that the likes of Germany, Japan and Italy don't, so all she has to do is keep in front of France in hard power terms to be #3.

I think Britain could retain her global power projection capability within her NATO responsibility by prioritising her maritime roles before her BAOR and RAFG.
 

nbcman

Donor
It’s not possible without stopping China’s rise or causing the US or Russia to fall. And if the US falls, most likely the UK declines with them.
 
In many ways, the UK still is the third power. It possesses a proper blue-water navy (with 1 carrier active and another on the way), which enables power-projection across the globe. Its many overseas territories also facilitate this. Russia's fleet is largely outdated and is unable to match British projection abilities, small as they may be (relative to the US). Likewise, China's fleet, while rapidly improving, currently fails to match the Royal Navy. In both cases, it is not the quantity but the quality of the ships that matters. If we're basing this on power projection then you could even place the UK second, after the US. Only the French come close to matching their projection abilities.

Of course, if you look as overall military strength, then Russia, China, and even (debatably) India certainly outstrip the UK.

To consolidate this position, a few better choices by UK governments post-1945 could keep Britain right up there.
 
It is my understanding that in Malaysia and the Persian Gulf States there were some leaders who were not enthused about the British leaving. There were people in Malaysia who were concerned about China and the Gulf States were concerned about Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. They would have preferred some arrangement with Britain that insure that the local leaders stayed in power in exchange of Britain having access to buying tin and oil with pounds.



 
Finding a way to better manage or remove the wartime debt with the US would be most useful.

Another key point would be decolonization. With the exception of Gibraltar and the military bases on Cyprus, all of the remaining present day British holdings are individual islands or island groups. In exchange for say letting a lot of African holdings go a decade or so early, maybe the British could then put more funding and resources into some of their smaller holdings such as Seychelles in the Indian Ocean, or in exchange for say letting Jamaica go independent a few years early, more resources could be invested in some of the other smaller islands throughout the Caribbean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri...tish_Empire#Central_America_and_the_Caribbean

Given that many of the territories that Britain does still hold today are located in the Caribbean region, I don't see it as an unrealistic concept that one or two islands or island groups that historically became independent might not be convinced to remain under UK rule.
 
Top