linky
How would this affect the development of the UK over the second half of the twentieth century? Would the UK even exist today?
The first oil line came ashore near Aberdeen, if I am correct. Gas pipelines came ashore in England earlier though. What I would suspect is that Scotland would be in a similar position to that of Norway, which has a smaller population than Scotland across the North Sea. Whatever happens, it would be interesting.Something I've wondered about for a while. Aren't all the North Sea oil fields in international waters? I believe I heard they were some time ago. If Scotland did seceed from the Union before the discovery of oil wouldn't England, which is larger and richer and can therefor afford more investment in the oil industy, just set up it's own rigs and pipe the stuff ashore in the North East, (I read somewhere that the first line can ashore in Tyneside)?
The Scottish Covenenant was a petition for a devolved Scottish Parliament in 1949/50, signed by just under half the entire population of Scotland. As such, the idea is not as incredible as you may think.Why would this happen, and how?
In OTL devolution only became a live issue because of the electoral impact of nationalism in the 70s; even most Labour figures didn't believe in it on principle at that time. Presumably you would have to have nationalism become much more successful earlier for this to have any chance of success.
But the fifties (specifically, the '55 election) were the high point of Scottish Toryism. In the fifties, Scotland was a Conservative bastion. With that in mind, the idea even of a Scottish Assembly, never mind a Parliament, in this period seems incredible.
Assuming there was a devolved parliament as early as the 50s, Scotland would very possibly become independent not long after the oil is discovered in the 1970s. After nearly two decades of devolution, I'd fully expect the Scottish government to be a more powerful institution than it is today, with more or less complete responsibility for everything that isn't defence and foreign affairs.
In such an instance, it's much easier to question the point of remaining under Westminster rule, and a referendum on independence is a lot easier won. It would always be close though, and is in no way a sure cut thing. Perhaps Nationalist demands would be bought off with full control of the oil revenues, but I can't see Westminster being keen to accede to such an agreement.
One thing which would be affected by Scottish independence is the United Kingdom's status as a Great Power. It accelerates the decline of the UK as a major force in world politics to that of a second rate player. Strategically, the UK will be forced to rely ever more on American military backup to secure geostrategic interests.
The rump UK would join the EU as in OTL.
A Scottish Parliament set up in the fifties would be much more Conservative in outlook: Scotland misses out on Thatcher's radicalisation, and the Tories aren't regarded as an English party, as they largely are in OTL.
The average standard of living is drastically improved, particularly in the most deprived areas of West Central Scotland where new heavy industries (largely related to the oil industry) are created at government instigation to counter charges that the East Coast is reaping all the benefits of Scotland's natural bounty.
As in any other society with a sudden surplus of government money, Scotland builds her share of white elephants. Dual carriageways in the Highlands lead to nowhere in particular, and grandiose construction projects run millions of pounds over budget.
Thoughts?
The first oil line came ashore near Aberdeen, if I am correct. Gas pipelines came ashore in England earlier though. What I would suspect is that Scotland would be in a similar position to that of Norway, which has a smaller population than Scotland across the North Sea. Whatever happens, it would be interesting.
Had it stayed within the union, I am unsure, which is why I made the op. I am also interested in how this would affect the rest of the UK. I mean to say, how could Ulster defend its unionist Ulster-Scots tradition, when Scotland is not part of the Union? How could Thatcherism cope should the North Sea oil revenue not be there? What of Wales? How would the rest of Britains position be in releation to the rest of the world? Should Scotland remain in the union, what of the Scottish Tories and would the rise of the SNP be affected?
So many thoughts on this but no answers! I considered a timeline on the subject, but it creates so many variables as to be untrue.
The Scottish Covenenant was a petition for a devolved Scottish Parliament in 1949/50, signed by just under half the entire population of Scotland. As such, the idea is not as incredible as you may think.
Just because your averge Scot voted Tory in that period does not equate to an anti-devolution bastion, it simply equates to the appeal of the subject. Had the Tories backed the Scots wishes, and implemented a Scottish Parliament along the lines of the NI Parliament, then they may well have avoided the decline they did.
FletcherOfSaltoun said:Had it stayed within the union, I am unsure, which is why I made the op. I am also interested in how this would affect the rest of the UK. I mean to say, how could Ulster defend its unionist Ulster-Scots tradition, when Scotland is not part of the Union? How could Thatcherism cope should the North Sea oil revenue not be there? What of Wales? How would the rest of Britains position be in releation to the rest of the world? Should Scotland remain in the union, what of the Scottish Tories and would the rise of the SNP be affected?
So many thoughts on this but no answers! I considered a timeline on the subject, but it creates so many variables as to be untrue.
Dan said:Umm, what happened to the butterfly effect? The 1950s were probably not the best time for SNP support, and something like the 55 Group could happen earlier rather than later if Scottish home rule happened in the late 1940s/early 1950s, and this time it could be major. Also, if Scotland got home rule, then so would Wales, and so would the English regions (particularly areas like Yorkshire and the North East), thus creating a federal UK with the West Lothian Question mainly solved. In addition, oil may not be discovered until much later - say, for example, it trades places with Newfoundland, which didn't start operations until the mid-1980s in the Hibernia oil field off the coast of St. John's in OTL.
Dan said:Ah, so Scotland becomes to the UK what Québec is to Canada?
Dan said:Hmm, I would see the decline happening more slowly, but that's probably me.
Dan said:Wasn't heavy industry in decline all over Britain at the time, anyway? I'm thinking of failed projects like the Chrysler plant in Linwood.
Dan said:Or, Scotland could wait and start developing the dual carriageway/motorway network later in TTL, à la Ireland in OTL, whilst learning from the mistakes made with the construction of the English motorway network.
It's very possible. But never underestimate the capacity of ANY politician of ANY party to bugger up ANY project where taxpayers money can be spent![]()
Somehow, I don't think it's likely that federalism would be instituted all at once. The UK has always specialised in clumsy, half arsed constitutional muddles. Even in our own rational, sensible age, devolution was implimented assymetrically.
One reason is demand: why set up Welsh and regional English governments if there is no demand for them?
Moreover, oil is always going to be discovered in the North Sea. The UK government is going to be desparate to find new, reliable sources of fuel in her own waters. I think the first finds were actually made in the 60s, though they only came online in the 70s. You can guarantee that it won't take long to discover the North Sea's bounty.
It's very possible. But never underestimate the capacity of ANY politician of ANY party to bugger up ANY project where taxpayers money can be spent![]()
Scotland had a population of five million, of whom four million were elligible to vote. Of these, over two million actually signed the covenant. Whatever way you put it, it must have been a cross-section from supporters of all parties.That's interesting, I didn't know about that.
What half of the population was signing it, though?
Despite the fact that in theory at least, Labour have always been a pro-devolution party, I think that the Tories, or as they were called in Scotland at thge time, the Unionist Party would be more likely to implement the bill. I know that this sounds mad, but hear me out.If you actually geared the whole thing up to the point of serious potential legislation level, I can really see it coming up against massive resistance. I am not really sure it would have been anything close to popular, or who would have sponsored it - if Labour runs with, it, it's going to have huge problems.
I mean, this is the fifties. There was plenty of unionist opposition to the idea of a Parliament in the nineties. Once you actually get down to it, the average unionist-minded Scot of the fifties is going to think this isn't just misguided, but revolutionary. The arguments against a Parliament in OTL - that it would presage the breakup of the union - are going to be brought out here, and they will be a hundred times more potent.
After North Sea Oil, in such a scenario, I can see Scotland becoming more wealthy. Before that I'm not sure. I happen to agree about Westminster and oil money though.Well, a devolved (or even federal) Scotland will still be fantastically wealthy, but such an arrangement would be accompanied by almost constant attempts by Westminster to cream off the revenue whatever happens.
I suspect that you would see a different political culture developing, as has happened post-devolution. That is only natural. Being honest though, in non-devolved areas, or even in an independent Scotland there would not be that much Scotland could do once Westminster decides whos getting which MoD contract for example. In an early independence scenario, you could also see the collapse of shipbuilding on the Clyde quicker than OTL.I think most of my independence scenario would remain essentially the same. By the 1980s Scots Labour and the Tories would have carved out more distinctly "Scottish" identities, and links with the federal parties at Westminster would have been loosened enough that they could be considered virtually separate institutions. Moreover, in scenarios where Scotland's interests conflict with those of the United Kingdom, the Scots Tories and Labour (and, of course, the SNP) have no fear fighting the Scottish corner, as anything less will lose them votes.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this, and I speak as a member of both the Labour Party and the CoS. Much of the Labour support has derived from its strong RC base in Glasgow. They could and probably would solidify the base by prompting fears of some sort of Calvanist state where it would not be good to be a Catholic. It was one argument tht was used against the SNP in OTL, and the reason they were christened the "Tartan Tories". TBH, its another reason why I think the Tories could, if devious enough, could be the party at this point to support devolution.Ulster's case is an interesting one. A Scottish Parliament set up in the fifties is going to be a lot more tied to Scotland's sectarian traditions, and I can see this crystalising in the Scots party system(Presbyterian/Episcopal Tories, Catholic Labour). However, fairly immediate efforts would be taken to tackle the most overt symptoms of the problem. Certainly, any Labour/SNP government is going to want to tackle the problem, the SNP because of it's desire for national unity across religious lines, and Labour because a large part of its voting base is Catholic and republican.
Your overplaying that I think. Any independent Scottish state, especially at this point would be both loyal to the crown and by a large majority, as today Presbyterian.Ulster has nothing to fear from Scottish devolution: what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Where things start getting complicated is if Scotland moves towards independence, particularly republican independence. The thousands of Orangemen in Scotland (and we are speaking thousands at this point in time) are going to be very, very unhappy. I can see acts of terrorism in West Central Scotland, assasination attempts against nationalist/republican politicians, and maybe even an emigration of militant Protestants across the border to England or Ulster. In such a case, the Protestant Ascendency in Ulster is going to be augmented, more righteously paranoid, and more likely to engage in violence against any further threat to the Union.
Many unionists in Northern Ireland base their Unionism on their Scottish heritage. If Scotland leaves the Union, I can forsee quite a bit of interesting things happening.That said, I can forsee a few Ulster politicians embracing the newfound independence of mind in Scotland, as long as it remains under the crown. Certainly, the traffic in people and ideas will remain between the two areas. Ulster Scots would undergo an early renaissance, with aid from a nationalist or Tory Scots government.
Whatever way you put it, it must have been a cross-section from supporters of all parties.
Despite the fact that in theory at least, Labour have always been a pro-devolution party, I think that the Tories, or as they were called in Scotland at thge time, the Unionist Party would be more likely to implement the bill. I know that this sounds mad, but hear me out.
I found this with a quick google search. Give the Royal Commision a different conclusion and things get very interesting.When the Conservatives returned to power in 1951 they established a royal commission on Scottish affairs. However, the Conservative government did not support Scottish devolution and the thirteen years of Conservative government between 1951 and 1964 witnessed a barren time for pro-devolutionists and a consistent Conservative opposition to Scottish home rule.
link
Despite the fact that in theory at least, Labour have always been a pro-devolution party, I think that the Tories, or as they were called in Scotland at thge time, the Unionist Party would be more likely to implement the bill. I know that this sounds mad, but hear me out.
I found this with a quick google search. Give the Royal Commision a different conclusion and things get very interesting.
I really think I'm going to do a timeline on this.