She didn't sell coal mines. Her administration did however sell off as much oil as possible as fast as possible which cratered the market for oil so low it helped bankrupt the USSR at our expense. Now the UK is a net importer of oil ten times as expensive. Just one example of short term policies that allowed tax cuts to make us feel good while screwing the UK in the long term.
This is an overly simplistic understanding of modern global trade that is unfortunately common with many on the left of the spectrum.
No country is an island - the idea that you should produce everything, even when it makes little to no economic sense, is a product of a bygone era. Countries become richer overall by focusing on that which they are most efficient. For a country like the UK, that's knowledge and finance.
That's an overly simplistic understanding of the energy industry and upcoming resource crunches that is unfortunately common with people who have never worked in the energy industry. Knowledge and finance doesn't replace the UK's need for energy which costs ten times what we sold off our reserves for in the 1980s. On Hacker News of all places you must be aware of that key idiom "you cannee change the laws of Physics, Jim".
You realize you are talking about coal mines here correct?
If anything, Thatcher's move to get the government out of the coal business was prophetic in many more ways than she could have realized. The market for UK coal was non-existent: the resource was already dead to natural gas and oil.
The modernization strategies of Thatcher in the UK, Reagan in the US and even Mulroney in Canada were painful, but necessary requirements of countries that were trying to stay ahead of the curve.
No, I'm not talking about coal mines at all. I'm talking about oil. Read the thread. You mentioned coal mines, you keep referencing coal mines, incorrectly assuming that is what I was referring to in my comment, which I then clarified as being about oil. Your comment about mines though was wrong anyway. She didn't sell off coal mines. You're just wrong about that. She just shut them down, for a whole bunch of reasons. You appear so eager to argue the thread that you're not actually reading what's been said.
The UK's oil facilities are profitable. Ergo those jobs are secure.
The fact that the UK is a net importer of oil is irrelevant, given that this has more to do with high consumption than it does the industry itself.
One way or another the UK is going to pay for it's energy. The difference between the coal mines that Thatcher ditched and oil is that with the coal the UK was paying for that as well.
You're seriously going to have to cite your sources (objective, peer-reviewed only, please) instead of relying on anecdotal data presumably from your experience working in the sector.
Sources for what? What's the controversial point in dispute, I'm unclear?
Oil prices? The current oil price and the oil price during the time of peak oil production of the North Sea fields is publicly available and googleable as are flow rates and production stats.
..or the fact that the West used oil prices as a weapon against the Soviets? Again a much-written about topic that you can do your own research on quite easily.
TheOilDrum.com has a lot of good links to info. What is the point that you deem controversial and in need of sourcing?
Edit: Oh wait, I see the point that you need a source for, that was Scottie in Star Trek.
Second Edit: Now, if this isn't just a rhetorical point of yours and if you are seriously interested in the oil industry and trends regarding North Sea production, and the problems the UK is facing because it flipped from 4th largest exporter in the world to net importer a few years back, I'm happy to chat about it and do the leg work to find you some interesting reads on that, but this post probably isn't the place for it (though I'll be blogging from richarddjordan.com as soon as I get by github pages set up, and you can always ask me there). It's a fascinating topic, and one that often takes people by surprise when they learn some of the rather concerning details.
You do realize the UK shifted to oil and gas right? While these are more expensive to consumers - or rather, not subsidized through taxes to the same extent - the country actually makes a net profit from this industry.
The UK has most definitely not shifted away from a dependency on coal - ~30% of electricity generated in the UK is from coal (a lot less than it used to be, but no way is that going down to zero any time soon).
Slight tangent, but it's not unsurprising that Brits, especially older Brits, might hold this view btw (that everything should be produced at home if possible). Prior to the world wars, the UK imported many things from the empire; during the war (particularly WWI), and with the closure of the seaways, there was a massive food problem because home industry was so far behind the modern times as to be useless. This has lesson has somewhat echoed down the years.
Isolationism is a fool's game, even for countries like the United States, let alone tiny Great Britain.
I doubt very highly that the UK could even physically grow the food it requires, let alone maintain all other industries a modern country needs to not only function, but expand.
