Interesting fault-lines developing on the principal Williams thesis that slavery significantly contributed to the British Industrial Revolution. The 'small percentages' critics of the profits of the slave trade, as well as Eltis and Engerman's critique of sugar trade.

Trevor endorses the Eltis-Engerman position, arguing the sugar industry was not a significant contributor to British national wealth, and foreign trade was a small proportion of domestic industry. The macro analyses, however, miss strategic importance of individual investments.

On the other side of the debate, Nuala Zahadieh, Pat Hudson, Nick Draper, @cevans3 and others show a) the systemic importance of slavery on English/Welsh cities, regions and individual industries, and b) the significant contribution of slavery-derived investments.

This is where is gets a little complicated. Eric defined decline of the West India economy to 1783, and perhaps as early as 1763. However, ,ost historians embrace decline, but exact date is disputed: Drescher (1832), Ward (1820s), Draper (1820s), Burnard (1820s).

In other words, the slavery economy was still profitable into the 19th century (Eric was wrong) and this contributed greatly to the development of Victorian Britain.

I'm firmly in the Williams-Hudson-Evans-Zahadieh-Draper school. There no question in my mind that Atlantic slavery was a major and decisive influence on the Scottish industrial revolution, even more so than England.

Tom Devine now in Williams school too (I think). For TMD, a) Scotland has a smaller and less diverse economy b) Close connections with colonies during the 'great leap' forward from 1750, c) Scotland is dependent on slavery economies for imports, exports, and capital

Most accept Eltis/Engerman/Burnard's case that the slavery economy represented a small proportion of English trade. But this is not the case in Scotland.

The counter-factual arguments are, imo, absurd (eg. the industrial revn would have occurred anyhow, perhaps due to relationship with India) but again, this does not apply in Scotland, since @HearaichHerald shows Scottish trading concerns were barred from India 17017-1813

In other words, Atlantic slavery takes on greater significance in Scotland in general and Glasgow in particular. This forthcoming monograph on Glasgow's sugar aristocracy is situated at a very interesting time in Scottish history, and arguably understudied.