Britain and Norway found the same sea of oil at the same time and did opposite things with the money. One built the largest fund in the world; the other spent it as it arrived. The difference wasn't luck, and it wasn't virtue. It was a rule.
Crossbencher · 18 July 2026
There was a case for spending it. It wasn't stupid.
Britain struck oil in the North Sea in the late 1960s. The real money began to flow through the late 1970s and the 1980s - which is to say, it arrived in the middle of an emergency. Whole industries were closing. Unemployment ran into the millions. A government facing that doesn't weigh the welfare of Norwegians in 2026. It weighs the household in front of it, this year, that needs the money now. Spending oil revenue on unemployment support and tax cuts during a real crisis isn't obviously wrong. Money kept from a family in a recession, so a fund can compound for citizens who can't yet vote, is a real cost too - just a quieter one. And Norway wasn't Britain. A far smaller population meant a much bigger windfall per head, and there was no industrial collapse to cushion. Hindsight never faced the fire.
Members only
Every writer, every column
The last 30 days of the argument are free for everyone, always. The archive beyond that is a Member thing - it is part of what keeps the whole record free.
One email a day: today’s quiz, the Bench question, the argument and what broke - every figure with its source. Free, and it saves your streak. Stop it any time from one link at the bottom of it.