The Falklands provided Margaret Thatcher with a military triumph, but might the islands also be her greatest economic success? Those searching for evidence of the UK’s “animal spirits” should leave behind the gleaming City of London, and take the once-weekly, 18-hour, 8,000-mile flight to the icy South Atlantic islands. A quarter of a century after the Argentine invasion, the 2,907 individuals on this “sovereign overseas territory” have a record that shames the mother country. Since 1984, real gross domestic product has grown at 7 per cent annually. GDP per capita of $60,200 is now 1.5 times the UK level.

It is a far cry from 1976 when Lord Shackleton, son of the Antarctic explorer, published an official report on the decline of the islands, then dependent on wool exports. Now, the ratio of sheep to humans is a respectable 206:1 but prospects have been transformed by diversification into fishing for catches such as the squid illex argentinus. Income from fishing licences generates 40 per cent of government revenues, allowing a budget surplus and adding to public net cash reserves of $332m. The focus is turning to tourism – those who brave average wind speeds of 15 knots and landmines will find a pristine natural environment. And a big oil find is still possible, though the $415m equity value of the five London-listed companies with most of the drilling rights suggests slim prospects.

In other circumstances, it might be time for the Falklands to declare independence. But relations with Argentina, which has presidential elections this year, have deteriorated sharply. Long gone are the days when Carlos Menem reportedly sent islanders copies of Winnie the Pooh for Christmas: the Buenos Aires parliament’s recent report on the islands was entitled “The Fallacy of Self-Determination”. That suggests a continuing big UK military presence. Its cost? About 200 per cent of Falklands GDP, paid for by London. But then the one thing everyone agrees about the Falklands is that it was never about the money.