[ticks]

There's a fourth option, where the country gorges on the short term flood of cash and easy access to oil and gas, which keeps taxes artificially low. The UK enjoyed the same benefits as Norway but went down this route instead - to a point where natural gas is now being shipped from South America to boost the reducing North Sea output.

[MoreMoschops]

To my mind, there's a difference in the relative size of the oil windfall. The UK has over ten times the population of Norway, so in effect the sudden cash income just doesn't compare to the Norwegian experience. The UK enjoyed similar benefits in absolute terms, but per capita it was much, much less. For the UK, it wasn't a game-changer, but for Norway etc, it was. The UK did not become "rich through oil", but Norway did.

[ticks]

The UK was in a bit of a crisis in the late 70s, early 80s - at risk of becoming bankrupt from the reliance on unreliable coal and imported oil.

That's the main reason why I think the North Sea reserves were gorged. A major shift was made to gas generated electricity (as well as being plumbed directly into homes) and a long term hope that nuclear was the future, which hasn't happened yet.

It essentially got the country through the 80s and 90s, and allowed a difficult transition towards services in time for globalisation.

[arethuza]

That transition to financial services worked out well!

[ticks]

Indeed. Though manufacturing for anything other than the high end had little chance of succeeding due to East Asia and Eastern Europe. It will eventually return once oil prices reach a certain level.