Scandinavia - Economy and Politics

[Coffeehouse]

Scandinavia - Economy and Politics

Why have I made this thread? For debate=)

As a Norwegian who has lived over half his life outside of Norway I have come to have a strange relationship with Scandinavia, and I have numerous thoughts about it which I would like to air here..

Here you can learn a bit about a corner in the world which you probably rarely hear about!

Why here, well because Entmoot is the only forum I use, and doing this on any of the University fora here at home would lead to insights from.. other Norwegian students, and that wouldn't give me any fresh insight=)

So if you ever wondered about anything Scandinavian, have critical comments (they are very welcome) about anything from say... Denmark's strict immigration policy, Sweden staying out of NATO, Norway staying out of the EU, the Scandinavian welfare system, high taxes, high prices, cold winters, strange languages, prolific travelling abroad, history and anything else between heaven and earth.. here's the place=)

So.. what is Scandinavia?

First.. a few facts and some history

According to Wiki:
"Scandinavia is a historical and geographical region in northern Europe that includes the Scandinavian Peninsula. It consists of the kingdoms of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark; some authorities also include Finland and some might even include Iceland."

Languages (Wiki):
"The North Germanic languages of Scandinavia are traditionally divided into an East Scandinavian branch (Danish and Swedish) and a West Scandinavian branch (Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese), but because of changes appearing in the languages since 1600, the East Scandinavian and West Scandinavian branches are now usually reconfigured into Insular Scandinavian (ö-nordisk/ø-nordisk) featuring (Icelandic and Faroese) and Continental Scandinavian (Skandinavisk), comprising Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. The modern division is based on the degree of mutual comprehensibility between the languages in the two branches."

History (Wiki):
"During a period of Christianization and state formation in the 10th-13th centuries, three consolidated kingdoms emerged in Scandinavia:

Denmark, forged from the Lands of Denmark (including Jutland, Zealand and Scania (Skåneland) on the Scandinavian Peninsula. The island Gotland in modern-day Sweden was initially also part of the Danish realm.)
Sweden, forged from the Lands of Sweden on the Scandinavian Peninsula (excluding the provinces Bohuslän, Härjedalen, Jämtland and Idre & Särna, Halland, Blekinge and Scania of modern-day Sweden)
Norway (including Bohuslän, Härjedalen, Jämtland and Idre & Särna on the Scandinavian Peninsula, and the islands Iceland, Greenland, Faroe Islands, Shetland, the Orkneys, Isle of Man and the Hebrides.)"

"The three Scandinavian kingdoms were united in 1397 in the Kalmar Union by Queen Margrete I of Denmark. Sweden left the union in 1523 under King Gustav Vasa. In the aftermath of Sweden's secession from the Kalmar Union, civil war broke out in Denmark and Norway. The Protestant Reformation followed. When things had settled down, the Norwegian Privy Council was abolished—it assembled for the last time in 1537. A personal union, entered into by the kingdoms of Denmark and Norway in 1536, lasted until 1814. Three sovereign successor states have subsequently emerged from this unequal union: Denmark, Norway and Iceland."

"The Dano-Norwegian union was formally dissolved at the 1814 Treaty of Kiel. The territory of Norway proper was ceded to the King of Sweden, but Norway's overseas possessions were kept by Denmark. However, widespread Norwegian resistance to the prospect of a union with Sweden induced the governor of Norway, crown prince Christian Frederick (later Christian VIII of Denmark), to call a constituent assembly at Eidsvoll in April 1814. The assembly drew up a liberal constitution and elected him to the throne of Norway. Following a Swedish invasion during the summer, the peace conditions specified that king Christian Frederik had to resign, but Norway was to keep its independence and its constitution within a personal union with Sweden. Christian Frederik formally abdicated on August 10 1814 and returned to Denmark. The parliament Storting elected king Charles XIII of Sweden as king of Norway on November 4.

The union between Sweden and Norway was dissolved in 1905, after which Prince Charles of Denmark was elected king of Norway under the name of Haakon VII."

A bit about each country:

Denmark:


"Denmark is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of government. Denmark has a state-level government and local governments in 98 municipalities. Denmark has been a member of the European Union (formerly European Economic Community) since 1973, although it has not joined the Eurozone, a currency union among the European Union member states that have adopted the euro as their sole official currency. Denmark is a founding member of NATO."

"Denmark, with a free market capitalist economy, and a large welfare state, ranks according to one measure as having the world's highest level of income equality. From 2006 to 2008, surveys ranked Denmark as "the happiest place in the world," based on standards of health, welfare, and education. The 2008 Global Peace Index survey ranks Denmark as the second most peaceful country in the world, after Iceland. Denmark was also ranked as the least corrupt country in the world in the 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index, sharing a top position with Sweden and New Zealand."

"Population
- 1 January 2009 estimate 5,511,451
GDP (PPP) 2008 estimate
- Total $203.519 billion[1] (49th)
- Per capita $38,207[1] (IMF) (14th)"


Sweden:


"Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of government and a highly developed economy. It ranks first in the world in The Economist's Democracy Index and 7th in the United Nation's Human Development Index. Sweden has been a member of the European Union since 1 January 1995.

Sweden emerged as an independent and unified country during the Middle Ages. It received a modern centralized administration beginning with King Gustav Vasa in the 16th century. In the 17th century the country expanded its territories to form the Swedish empire. Most of the conquered territories outside the Scandinavian Peninsula were lost during the 18th and 19th centuries. The eastern half of Sweden, present-day Finland, was lost to Russia in 1809. The last war in which Sweden was directly involved was in 1814, when Sweden by military means forced Norway into a personal union with Sweden, a union which lasted until 1905.

Since 1814, Sweden has been at peace, adopting a non-aligned foreign policy in peacetime and neutrality in wartime."

"Population
- 2008 census 9,234,2094
GDP (PPP) 2008 estimate
- Total $335.405 billion[4] (30th)
- Per capita $37,525[4] (IMF) (16th)"


Norway:


"Norway, officially the Kingdom of Norway, is a constitutional monarchy in Northern Europe that occupies the western portion of the Scandinavian Peninsula.

Since World War II Norway has experienced rapid economic growth, and is now amongst the wealthiest countries in the world.[5][6][7] Norway is the world's fourth largest oil exporter[8] and the petroleum industry accounts for around a quarter of GDP.[9]

Norway also has rich resources of gas fields, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals. Norway was the second largest exporter of seafood (in value, after China) in 2006.[10] Other main industries include food processing, shipbuilding, metals, chemicals, mining, fishing and pulp and paper products. Norway has a Scandinavian welfare model and the largest capital reserve per capita of any nation.

Norway was ranked highest of all countries in human development from 2001 to 2006, and shares first place with Iceland from 2007 to 2008.[11] It was also rated the most peaceful country in the world in a 2007 survey by Global Peace Index.[12] It is a founding member of NATO."

"Population
- 2009 estimate 4,805,437 (as of January 29, 2009) (115th)
GDP (PPP) 2008 estimate
- Total $259.049 billion[2] (43rd)
- Per capita $55,198[2] (IMF) (2nd)"

A map of Scandinavia



That's that.. a some information about Scandinavia in case you didn't know or ever wondered=)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now to the issue I'd like to raise!

I came across an article in the Economist, http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ry_id=12970769, titled "Norway and the Environment - Binge and Purge", which looked at two contradictions in terms of our environmental politics.

My question, what should a oil- and gas-exporting nation like Norway do to become greener. Do we shift away from this economic activity? What do we then do.. invest billions in wave- and windpower?
Norway looks to have the 'cleanest' oil and gas extraction in the world, CO2 emissions per barrel produces. It provides about 20 percent of all gas in Europe, while Russia provides most of the rest of that, and Russia has a whole lot dirtier production. Isn't it an argument then that it is better for Norway to continue to develop cleaner technologies than simply stop producing oil and gas? If we did, who would take over the market? Russia.

Then there's the question of alternative energy. Sweden has nuclear power plants. Norway doesn't. Should we invest in that?

That's the first issue I'd like to raise in this thread. Feel free to add news articles, comments, debate points, fun facts and whatever to this thread!

[The Gaffer]

I went to Norway on my honeymoon, and was impressed. Here's a country about the same size as Scotland population-wise, with even more inaccessible terrain and worse climate, yet clearly people have a higher standard of living.

Norway, unlike every other country in the world, has not pished its mineral wealth up against the wall. It has invested it. Can't recall the name of the fund, I'm sure you know CH. This is far more enlightened than the standard process of maxing out profits today and lining the pockets of the few. In the UK's case, we used the tax money to pay social security for the people who had been made redundant by the closure of all other industries. The rest went straight into overseas corporations.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I went to Norway on my honeymoon, and was impressed.

Really? Where did you go?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Here's a country about the same size as Scotland population-wise, with even more inaccessible terrain and worse climate, yet clearly people have a higher standard of living.

Lol I had to show this post to a friend of mine Maybe it's the cold winters that scares off many people, but really we have quite nice weather here in Norway if you think about the high latitude we're at. Even high up in the northern part the summers can be quite comfortable because of the warm currents flowing from the Gulf of Mexico.

Contrary to common belief about this northerly place, we have four very distinct seasons:

Autumn


Winter


Spring


Summer

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Norway, unlike every other country in the world, has not pished its mineral wealth up against the wall. It has invested it. Can't recall the name of the fund, I'm sure you know CH. This is far more enlightened than the standard process of maxing out profits today and lining the pockets of the few. In the UK's case, we used the tax money to pay social security for the people who had been made redundant by the closure of all other industries. The rest went straight into overseas corporations.

I believe your referring to the Government Pension Fund, or Oil Fund as we also call it. Most of the revenue that Norway earns through oil and gas export is channelled into this fund (the remained is re-invested).

Norway was fortunate in its timing when we discovered gas and oil reserves in the North Sea because we were already well on our way in developing a quite coherent and well-structured welfare state (albeit in its infancy), and we were a democracy unlike most nations hit by the natural resource curse.

[The Gaffer]

Well, we got the same curse at the same time, and pished it up against the wall, democracy notwithstanding. We had a monetarist "rob the poor to feed the rich" government at the time. We are now seeing precisely how good a job of stewardship of the economy these *******s do when given free reign.

I loved it. We stayed in Bergen and Flam (Sognefjord) for a week. In fact, here's a pic from the net of where we stayed: the hytte on the right.

http://midlifemadness.files.wordpres...rds-flam-1.jpg

This was the view out of the window:

http://z.about.com/d/cruises/1/0/s/L..._Norway_02.JPG

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Well, we got the same curse at the same time, and pished it up against the wall, democracy notwithstanding. We had a monetarist "rob the poor to feed the rich" government at the time. We are now seeing precisely how good a job of stewardship of the economy these *******s do when given free reign.

Is it so? I have to admit I did not know Scotland was so heavily involved in the petroleum industry, though admittedly Norway and the British isles share about 50-50 of the oil in the North Sea along our sea border. Do you share your industry with the English under some common United Kingdom economic area or do you have a separate one?
I'm very interested in hearing more about this!

In any case I really should read more about Scotland. Of all the people in the world I find Scots to be the most similar to Norwegians. I can't put my finger on it
You know when Scotland is in football competitions, and not playing Norway, everyone I know seem to root for them Especially if it's against England It's that little brother mentality Sweden and Denmark have shoved down our throats I think

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I loved it. We stayed in Bergen and Flam (Sognefjord) for a week. In fact, here's a pic from the net of where we stayed: the hytte on the right.

Brilliant! Half my family is from the Bergen-area, and my grandfather's family lived on a steep-sloped mountainside that runs right into the water such as is depicted on that second photography The roads are still too narrow (as they were constructed for horse-and-wagon travel) for safe cardriving but people drive anyways But it's very green and beautiful though I've travelled there far too little..

The people from the western part of Norway are known to be creative, good with economics and very stubborn. The Germans had little fun occupying that part of Norway during the War

[The Gaffer]

The connections go back over 1,000 years, since the Vikings paid their regular visits, and settled here. Orkney and Shetland were Norwegian till about 1600 or so. The connections are genetic, linguistic (Shetlanders sound very much like Norwegians do when they're speaking English) and historic.

Check out the Shetland Bus: http://www.shetland-heritage.co.uk/shetlandbus/

Re: oil: Scotland and England are part of the same country: the UK. Many people, not least the English, tend to make the mistake of thinking that England and the UK are the same thing. So the oil belongs to the UK, which means that they are sold off to private enterprise and all we get are tax receipts (most of which is evaded through the usual accountancy practices).

We even had the ridiculous situation last year, when the Russians shut down the supplies to Europe, of our gas being diverted to Germany to top up their stocks. Not that I resent the Germans their stockpile, but it would be nice in a time of crisis if our government was able to say "er, actually, we DON'T HAVE ANY stocks of gas, so actually we'd like the option of using our OWN BLIMMING RESERVES to keep our heating systems alight, thank you very much."

About 75% of the UK oil reserves are in Scottish waters though, so if we were independent we'd get most of what's left. The Nationalists like to point this out as often as possible.

National characters are interesting. Obviously, one has to be careful about stereotyping, but I think there is an affinity there. I wonder if it has to do with population (5m, mostly in cities), a relatively large, unpopulated wilderness, crap weather and historically having fought for identity against a neighbour (didn't Norway have to kick the Danes out to get its independence?). We also share a commitment to social welfare which is noticeably greater than most other countries. Anyway, if you've got the Faroes and Iceland in there, I think Scots should be considered for honorary Scandinavian status.

Personally, I'm not a nationalist: I think there are enough countries already. Being part of a larger whole whilst retaining your identity is something that (many) Scots have an understanding of which eludes most other nationalities (yes, I'm looking at you, England).

PS - don't get too friendly on the football front: you guys are in our group for World Cup qualification, scrapping for second place behind Holland.

[Coffeehouse]

Definitely! I even read somewhere that Old Norse was spoken in Scotland back in the Middle Ages, and that a Norwegian princess was due to become Queen (she died on her way to Scotland or something) right before the civil war you guys had. Alas!

Yeah I realise England isn't all of United Kingdom. England isn't even a country in its own right, much like Scotland. It's a long-lasting relationship but I have to say I imagine that if I were a Scot I'd be cheering the Nationalists. Independence rings beautifully in my ears

And the reason for that is, to answer your other question, yes we had a love-hate relationship with Denmark through the unequal union we had with her for 400 years or so. And in 1814 our nation was in a situation much similar to that of the United States in 1776. The outcome for us however was less than ideal since we didn't have any great European power that supported us, in fact everyone seemed to want to deny us independence. As is shown below, we attempted a Declaration of Independence and the Constitution drafted in 1814 was quite radical for its time, heavily inspired by the French and American ones. The Swedes got to us in the end tho

The Wikipedia-article on Norway in 1814 gives a very good overview of our independence movement I believe (rather long article, I've only published here the highlights):

"1814 was a pivotal year in Norwegian history. It started with Norway as a part of the Danish kingdom subject to a naval blockade being ceded to the king of Sweden. In May a constitutional convention declared Norway an independent kingdom. By the end of the year the Norwegian parliament had agreed to join with Sweden in a personal union under the Swedish king. Although nationalist aspirations were not to be fully realized until the events of 1905, 1814 was the crisis and turning point in events that would lead to a fully independent Norway.

The year contains the story of two ambitious future kings in Scandinavia who both may have hoped to unite Sweden, Denmark, and Norway under their throne. The Norwegian people and their leaders were caught in the middle of this rivalry, attempting through the crisis to create a measure of self-determination.

Denmark-Norway had become entangled on the French side in the Napoleonic War through its participation in the Gunboat War. Having lost its fleet, it was virtually defenseless as the tides turned against France.

On January 7, about to be overrun by Swedish, Russian, and German troops under the command of the elected crown prince of Sweden, Jean Baptiste Jules (Carl Johan) Bernadotte, king Frederick VI of Denmark agreed to cede Norway to the king of Sweden in order to avoid an occupation of Jutland. These terms were formalized and signed at the Treaty of Kiel on January 14, in which Denmark negotiated to maintain sovereignty over the Norwegian possessions Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Iceland. Secret correspondence from the British government in the preceding days had put pressure on the negotiating parties to reach an agreement to avoid a full-scale invasion of Denmark. Bernadotte sent a letter to the governments of Prussia, Austria, and the United Kingdom thanking them for their support, acknowledging the role of Russia in negotiating the peace, and envisaging greater stability in the Nordic region.

On January 18, the Danish king issued a letter to the Norwegian people, releasing them from their fealty to him.

Already in Norway, the viceroy of Norway, Hereditary Prince Christian Frederik was aware of the growing dissatisfaction with the Danish union. Several influential Norwegians favoured a union with Sweden, while others hoped for independence. When it was rumoured that the king contemplated to cede parts of Norway in order to avoid an invasion of Denmark, Christian Frederik resolved to preserve the integrity of the country, and if possible the union with Denmark, by taking the lead in a Norwegian insurrection. The king was informed of these plans in a secret letter of December 1813.

On January 24, Christian Frederik received a letter from his cousin, the king of Denmark, ordering him to surrender the border fortresses and return to Denmark. However, he kept the contents of the letter to himself, ordering his troops to hold the fortresses. He also ordered currency with the Norwegian seal to be issued, and these "prince dollars" became the first paper money issued in Norway, though the prince refused to set up a Norwegian central bank. In time, the monetary expansion led to inflation and uncertainty in the financial markets.

Christian Frederik decided to claim the throne of Norway as rightful heir, and to set up an independent government with himself at the head. On January 30, he consulted several prominent Norwegian advisors, arguing that king Frederick had no legal right to relinquish his inheritance, asserting that he was the rightful king of Norway, and that Norway had a right to self-determination. His impromptu council agreed with him, setting the stage for an independence movement.

On February 2, the Norwegian public learned that their country was ceded to the king of Sweden. There was growing enthusiasm for Christian Frederik's ideas for an independent Norway.

On February 8, Bernadotte responded by threatening to send an army to occupy Norway, promising a constitutional convention, and threatening a continued grain embargo against Norway if Sweden's claims under the treaty of Kiel were not met. But for the time being, he was occupied with the concluding battles on the Continent, giving the Norwegians time to take develop their plans.

Although the European powers refused to acknowledge the Norwegian independence movement, there were signs by early April that they were not inclined to support Sweden in an all-out confrontation on the matter.

As time approaches for the constitutional convention, there was growing support for opposition to the treaty of Kiel, especially from Bergen.

On April 10, the constitutional convention convened for the first time, at church services in Eidsvoll. The sermon caused some stir by flattering Christian Frederik in particular and the monarchy in general. The delegates' were accredited that afternoon, after Severin Løvenskiold had refused to give fealty to the independence movement.

As it turned out, there was a clear consensus among all delegates that independence would be the ideal solution, but there was disagreement what solution was workable given real-world constraints.

On June 26, emissaries from Russia, Prussia, Austria, and Great Britain arrived in Vänersborg in Sweden to convince Christian Frederik to comply with the provisions of the treaty of Kiel. There they conferred with von Essen, who told them that 65,000 Swedish troops were ready to invade Norway. On June 30 the emissaries arrived in Christiania, where they rudely turned down Christian Frederik's hospitality. Meeting with the Norwegian council of state the following day, the Russian emissary Orlow put the choice to those present: Norway could subject itself to the Swedish crown or face war with the rest of Europe. When Christian Frederik argued that the Norwegian people had a right to determine its own destiny, the Austrian emissary August Ernst Steigentesch made the famous comment:

- "The people? What do they have to say against the will of its rulers? That would be to put the world on its head."

In the course of the negotiations, Christian Frederik, offered to relinquish the throne and return to Denmark, provided the Norwegians have a say in their future through an extraordinary session in the Storting. But he refused to surrender the Norwegian border forts to Swedish troops. On 15 July the four-power delegation rejected Christian Frederik's proposal that Norway's constitution form the basis for negotiations about a union with Sweden, but promised to put the proposal to the Swedish king for consideration. The negotiations were a partial success in that the delegation left convinced that Christian Frederik was sincere and had the backing of a popular movement.

On July 20, Bernadotte sent a letter to his "cousin" Christian Frederik accusing him of intrigues and foolhardy adventurism. To add to the problems, the three Norwegians who had made their way to London were arrested, charged with carrying false passports and papers. They were deported immediately.

On July 22, Bernadotte met with the delegation that had been in Norway. They encouraged him to consider Christian Frederik's proposed terms for a union with Sweden, but the crown prince was outraged. He reiterated his ultimatum that Christian Frederik either relinquish all rights to the throne and abandon the border posts, or face war. On July 27, a Swedish naval fleet took over Hvaler, effectively putting Sweden at war with Norway. The day after, Christian Frederik rejected the Swedish ultimatum, saying that such a surrender would constitute treason against the Norwegian people. On July 29, Swedish forces moved to invade Norway.

Swedish forces met with little resistance as they advanced northward into Norway, bypassing the fortress of Fredriksten. The first hostilities were short and ended with decisive victories for Sweden. By August 4, the fortified city of Fredrikstad surrendered. Christian Frederik ordered a retreat to the river Glomma. The Swedish Army, trying to intercept the retreat, was stopped at the battle of Langnes, an important tactical victory the the Norwegians. The Swedish assaults from the east were effectively resisted near Kongsvinger.

On August 3 Christian Frederik announced his political will in a cabinet meeting in Moss. On August 7 a delegation from Bernadotte arrived at the Norwegian military headquarters in Spydeberg with a cease-fire offer that would join Norway in a union with Sweden and respect the Norwegian constitution. The day after, Christian Frederik expressed himself in favor of the terms, allowing Swedish troops to remain in positions east of Glomma. Hostilities broke out at Glomma, resulting in casualties, but the Norwegian forces were ordered to retreat. Peace negotiations with Swedish envoys began in the town of Moss on August 10. On August 14, the negotiations concluded. The Convention of Moss resulted in a general cease-fire based on terms that effectively were terms of peace.

Christian Frederik succeeded in excluding from the text any indication that Norway had recognized the Treaty of Kiel, and Sweden accepted that it was not to be considered a premise of the future union between the two states. Understanding the advantage of avoiding a costly war, and of letting Norway enter into a union voluntarily instead of being annexed as a conquered territory, something that, historically, the Swedes had never managed to do, Bernadotte offered favourable peace terms. He promised to recognize the Norwegian Constitution, with only those amendments that were necessary to open up for a union of the two countries. Christian Frederik agreed to call an extraordinary session of the Storting in September or October. He would then have to transfer his powers to the elected representatives of the people, who would negotiate the terms of the union with Sweden, and finally relinquish all claims to the Norwegian throne and leave the country.

The news hit the Norwegian public hard, and reactions included anger at the "cowardice" and "treason" of the military commanders, despair over the prospects of Norwegian independence, and confusion about the country's options. Christian Frederik confirmed his willingness to abdicate the throne for "reasons of health," leaving his authority with the state council as agreed in a secret protocol at Moss. In a letter dated August 28, Christian Frederik ordered the council to accept orders from the "highest authority," clearly referring to the Swedish king. Two days later, the Swedish king proclaimed himself the ruler of both Sweden and Norway.

On September 3, the British announced that the naval blockade of Norway was lifted. Postal service between Norway and Sweden was resumed. By September 8, prominent Norwegians were taking note of the generous terms offered by Bernadotte. The Swedish general in the occupied border regions of Norway, Magnus Fredrik Ferdinand Björnstjerna, threatened to resume hostilities if the Norwegians would not abide by the armistice agreement and willingly accept the union with Sweden. Christian Frederik was reputed to have fallen into a deep depression and was variously blamed for the battleground defeats.

In late September, a dispute arose between Swedish authorities and the Norwegian council of state over the distribution of grain among the poor in Christiania. The grain was intended as a gift from the Swedish king to the Norwegians, but it became a matter of principle for the Norwegian council to avoid the appearance that Norway had a new king until the transition was formalized. Björnstjerna sent several missives threatening to resume hostilities.

On 26 September, the Norwegian general in the "northern" region of Norway, Carl Jacob Waldemar von Schmettow, vowed in Norwegian newspapers to forcibly resist any further Swedish troop movements into Norway.

On October 10, Christian Frederik formally abdicated according to the conditions agreed on at Moss and embarked for Denmark. Executive powers were provisionally assigned to the Storting, until the necessary amendments to the Constitution were enacted.

On October 20, with one day to spare before the cease-fire expired, the Norwegian parliament voted 72 to 5 to join Sweden in a personal union, but a motion to elect Charles XIII king of Norway failed to pass. The issue was tabled pending the necessary amendments to the Norwegian constitution. In the following days, the parliament passed several resolutions to assert as much sovereignty as possible within the union. On November 1, they voted 52 to 25 that Norway would not appoint its own consuls, a decision that would have serious consequences in 1905. On November 4, the Storting adopted the constitutional amendments that were required to allow for the union, and unanimously elected Charles XIII king of Norway, rather than acknowledging him as such."

So if you read all of that you get why Norwegians embrace independence movements and the fight of 'regular Joe' with a great eagerness

Painting of the signing of the Constitution in 1814:


This period means alot to me actually, besides the independence movement!, given the fact that in 1813 when Denmark had yet to give up Norway, the Danish king sent Christian Frederik to Norway to strengthen the bonds with Norway.

And when he came on his ship towards the capital, he switched to another smaller boat (near Hvaler, by the Swedish-Norwegian border). That boat, having to cover shallow waters and get the Prince safely ashore, was driven by a local. The guy who captained it was by my great-great-great-great-great grandfather

---

P.S. Don't worry, I wish the Scots all the bad luck they can get when we meet in the World Cup qualifier I reckon its either you or us who join the Dutch to the World Cup.

[The Gaffer]

No need. I reckon it'll be between you and Macedonia. We are rubbish and have been for years (a few flukey wins against France notwithstanding).

Re: independence, for me it's a matter of emotion.

I have a very deep-seated mistrust of patriotism and nationalism generally. Hasty Ent used to have a sig that said "Patriotism is your conviction that your country is superior to all others because you were born in it." George Bernard Shaw quote I think. It is irrational and brings the idiotic into the political sphere, which is almost always bad news.

Thanks for the info. So you guys have been in bed with the Danes, then the Swedes. Not too bad. I always wondered how Denmark ended up with the Faroes, Iceland and Greenland.

They call Margaret the "Maid of Norway" over here. Though the outcome of it all was independence from England in 1314, and without it we wouldn't have had Mel Gibson all painted up in woad going "FREEEEDOMMMM!!!" so in all a mixed blessing.

[The Gaffer]

Hey weird, the ad at the top of the screen is showing holidays in Norway. There must be some Orwellian thing going on that relates the ads to the topic of the discussion.

Let's see if it goes by title field or frequency of occurrence:

whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky whisky

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Nice experiement, gaffer. My heading is now about "get help now".

[The Gaffer]

:lol: Now I've got "Dentists in Sweden". How did they know my teeth are knackered? Spooky.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

No need. I reckon it'll be between you and Macedonia. We are rubbish and have been for years (a few flukey wins against France notwithstanding).

Re: independence, for me it's a matter of emotion.

I have a very deep-seated mistrust of patriotism and nationalism generally. Hasty Ent used to have a sig that said "Patriotism is your conviction that your country is superior to all others because you were born in it." George Bernard Shaw quote I think. It is irrational and brings the idiotic into the political sphere, which is almost always bad news.

Thanks for the info. So you guys have been in bed with the Danes, then the Swedes. Not too bad. I always wondered how Denmark ended up with the Faroes, Iceland and Greenland.

They call Margaret the "Maid of Norway" over here. Though the outcome of it all was independence from England in 1314, and without it we wouldn't have had Mel Gibson all painted up in woad going "FREEEEDOMMMM!!!" so in all a mixed blessing.

Mhm yeah you're right, there is healthy and less healthy nationalism I find that if it celebrates your culture, but in a non-exclusive way, then it can be something cool. What I don't like are nations that include military parades and stuff. That to me is just a sign of poor self-confidence and isn't really celebrating the people but power and I want nothing to do with that.

Independence celebrations in Norway, on the 17th of May, although everyone gets out on street or at least celebrates in some way (and I mean everyone.. old, crippled, blind, you name it), it pretty very innocent.

There aren't fireworks and stuff.. Just lots of singing, corp music, walking around eating ice cream and cakes, waving our flag, and looking at the parade of all the nations schools whom always take centre-stage in every village in the nation.
And of course if you have it, you put on the national attire, a bunad, which looks like this (though there are hundreds of different attires, dependent on where in Norway you're from):

The Crown Prince and Crown Princess:


Two lady's bunad


More lady's bunads=)


A gentleman's bunad:



I'm hope Macedonia doesn't qualify! They're supporters are mad, and even violent sometimes. If Norway fails I hope Scotland make it through. You have some crazy supporters, love watching them

[Varnafindë]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Independence celebrations in Norway, on the 17th of May, although everyone gets out on street or at least celebrates in some way (and I mean everyone.. old, crippled, blind, you name it), it pretty very innocent.

There aren't fireworks and stuff.. Just lots of singing, corp music, walking around eating ice cream and cakes, waving our flag, and looking at the parade of all the nations schools whom always take centre-stage in every village in the nation.
And of course if you have it, you put on the national attire, a bunad, which looks like this (though there are hundreds of different attires, dependent on where in Norway you're from):

That's what makes such a big difference, I think - instead of a military parade, we have a parade of schoolchildren.

In Oslo the parade goes up the main street (which is named after Karl Johan, who was mentioned earlier, and who vetoed any celebration of 17th of May - Constitution Day - during his lifetime) and then passes in front of the Royal Palace. There the King and Queen and other members of the Royal family stay on the balcony, waving to the people, for the two or three hours it takes for the parade to pass by.


The parade passing in front of the Royal Palace - you can just about see the Royals on the balcony

Two ladies with a bunad like the one I've got
(I'm linking to it because it's such a large picture)

[Coffeehouse]

I was going to link to another article in the Danish newspaper Politiken (see thread on News), but then I came across this article: http://politiken.dk/udland/article792443.ece.

The Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre has invited the Nordic countries Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland to discuss the possibility of all these countries forming an entity of sorts to be represented at the G20.

Was wondering what primarily the Nordic Mooters in here were thinking about this?

I find it very interesting, after all, if you combine our economies we represent the 10th largest economy in the world. The Nordic countries represent an approach to international politics and global affairs quite different to the other greater powers. Such an entity, strictly cooperational of course, could have a positive influence I don't know about the other Nordic Mooters in here but I find that many times I feel very at odds with the discussion and views presented by the EU, the US, China, Russia, India...

[Jonathan]

My initial response to Jonas Gahr Støre's proposal was that it is a meager attempt to pile up some Scandinavian clout. But maybe it isn't such a bad idea after all. Speaking with one voice certainly could increase the chances of the G20 listening just a bit more carefully to us.

However, I think we Scandinavians generally tend to overestimate our international influence. So let's not kid ourselves - even if we stand united, we're still a pretty small voice in the big big world. Perhaps we are the 10th largest economy, but there is still a long way up to countries like Japan or Germany.

[Coffeehouse]

It's definitely an attempt to get clout, let's be honest Jonas Gahr Støre is a shrewd minister, but he's also one of the brightest and most honest foreign ministers Norway has ever had and he seems to be cooperating well with the FMs of the other Nordic countries.

We aren't Japan nor Germany, and never will be, but that shouldn't be a hinder. The Nordic countries should perhaps speak as one voice in G20 because it is healthy that views of not solely great powers are heard. The Nordic countries also represent interests of smaller countries, in that way we can be saying things smaller countries want to say but can't because they aren't at the G20.