United Scandinavia?

[sachsenkoenig]

What do you think of a united Scandinavia? I have heard many ideas of pros and cons of such a nation, but it seems their is some sort of unity link between Scandinavians. Although rivals, being Scandinavian seems to be a proud thing in their lives. It seems they are Scandinavian before they are Norwegian or Swedish and I was curious on your oppinion?

Would you include Finland who speaks a Finnic language? Would you include Iceland who speaks a version of Old Norse?

[3rdEye]

Originally Posted by sachsenkoenig

It seems their is some sort of unity link between Scandinavians.

Of course there is; in a shared culture. For Scandinavians, it goes further than for Germanics as a whole, since the scandinavian languages are quite similar to each other.

Originally Posted by sachsenkoenig

Although rivals, being Scandinavian seems to be a proud thing in their lives. It seems they are Scandinavian before they are Norwegian or Swedish and I was curious on your oppinion?

That is a complicated question. If you mean that ethnologically, then some Swedes share a closer origin with some Norwegians than with some other Swedes, something that is reflected in dialects. But if you are talking about identification, then we are usually Swedes and Norwegians before we are Scandinavians.

Originally Posted by sachsenkoenig

Would you include Finland who speaks a Finnic language?

No. Finland is not scandinavian.

Originally Posted by sachsenkoenig

Would you include Iceland who speaks a version of Old Norse?

Iceland is scandinavian.

Originally Posted by sachsenkoenig

What do you think of a united Scandinavia? I have heard many ideas of pros and cons of such a nation, (...)

Negative; I have said before that I am in favour of a Norwegian-Swedish union, but I am not entirely sure anymore, and, besides, it is a question with no actuality at the moment. There are many problems to sort out before it could be considered more seriously. Also, I would like to reserve myself against calling it a nation. In fact I do not even like so much the concept of swedish when it is taken to mean that Swedes are all the same or something like that. Regional culture is already far gone in the process of disintegration. That is so not out of any kind of positive synthesis, but out of the sheer brutality of a politically driven centralisation.

[hermeticist]

Originally Posted by 3rdEye

I have said before that I am in favour of a Norwegian-Swedish union, but I am not entirely sure anymore, and, besides, it is a question with no actuality at the moment. There are many problems to sort out before it could be considered more seriously.

The union existed during most of the 19th century. The Norwegians weren't very happy with it and broke away in 1905. I don't see any logic to having one again. Even were one to be considered, there are matters like Swedish neutrality (Norway is in NATO), and Swedish membership in the EU (Norway is outside). In any event, there already exists the Nordic Council; Why to go further than this?

[Routasydän]

This might be a little besides the point, but I would gladly welcome a Nordic military alliance, instead of Nato.

[3rdEye]

Originally Posted by bombadillo

The union existed during most of the 19th century. The Norwegians weren't very happy with it and broke away in 1905. I don't see any logic to having one again. Even were one to be considered, there are matters like Swedish neutrality (Norway is in NATO), and Swedish membership in the EU (Norway is outside). In any event, there already exists the Nordic Council; Why to go further than this?

The Nordic Council is not scandinavian, and, besides, its importance has waned much due to the EU. It is also a corrupt body, since the people who make up its membership are the same corrupt politicians that we have in the parliaments.

[3rdEye]

Originally Posted by Routasydän

This might be a little besides the point, but I would gladly welcome a Nordic military alliance, instead of Nato.

Me too. I think that is a great idea.

[hermeticist]

Originally Posted by 3rdEye

The Nordic Council is not scandinavian,

Surely Finland is the only non-Scandinavian country(?)

It is also a corrupt body, since the people who make up its membership are the same corrupt politicians that we have in the parliaments.

Would it be different were there to be a merger of some sort?

[Yago]

Originally Posted by 3rdEye

Negative; I have said before that I am in favour of a Norwegian-Swedish union, but I am not entirely sure anymore, and, besides, it is a question with no actuality at the moment. There are many problems to sort out before it could be considered more seriously. Also, I would like to reserve myself against calling it a nation. In fact I do not even like so much the concept of swedish when it is taken to mean that Swedes are all the same or something like that. Regional culture is already far gone in the process of disintegration. That is so not out of any kind of positive synthesis, but out of the sheer brutality of a politically driven centralisation.

Even if the question of a union has been asked and discussed times before, I've never seen anyone putting forward any model of structure for this hypothetical union.

And so the question remains a vague one, in my opinion.

[Routasydän]

This is of course complete fantasy at the moment, something to speculate about.

[3rdEye]

Originally Posted by bombadillo

Surely Finland is the only non-Scandinavian country(?)

Yes, but you know, I have been told by a great many Americans that Finland is in Scandinavia, something that although flawed it is they often take to have far-reaching significance ethnically and culturally in a way that is again altogether flawed. It cannot be stressed enough that Finland is not scandinavian in any of those senses. The Nordic Council proves nothing as well. What you can make a case for is that there has been a fair amount of exchange of ideas between Finland and Sweden, something that has followed from swedish influence there. In modern times it appears that this exchange has gone both ways, but the ethnic and cultural significance of such late developments is close to none, in my opinion. If we were to make a list of things that Finland and Sweden have in common, I am sure that the list would be pretty long. But then again, we could probably make a similar list for Poland and Sweden, and find that some of the things at the top of that list actually go deeper than the things on the top of the Sweden-Finland list. Another rather obvious sign that the differences between Sweden and Finland really matter is that finnish mass immigration to Sweden has left huge marks in Sweden in a way that stands out and draws attention to it as something strange. Although many Germans have also moved to Sweden, it has not brought about anything that stands out. The same can be said about Norwegians to an even greater extent. Danes are close to the Norwegians in this regard, although there is a certain amount of tension which is mostly just curious today. My point here is that germanic ties are much stronger ethnically and culturally than are finnish-swedish ties, and political and geographical proximity has not been able to change that in any significant way. And it is all the more important to stress this since there are plenty of politicians in Sweden who are pushing their luck with this, at the expense at least of Swedes, but I would say at the expense of both Finns and Swedes.

Originally Posted by bombadillo

Would it be different were there to be a merger of some sort?

A merger? I know perfectly well what merge means, but "a merger" does not ring a bell in this context.

[Vale]

Yes scandinavians are in many ways "united", but I hold my norwegian identity higher than my scandinavian one.

As for a union, Im not for it at all, some swedes seems to suffer from what is best described as "great-swedishness" and want Norway back under the imperial boot of Sweden. Norway have been dominated in hundreds of years by our neighbours Sweden and Denmark and I reckon any norwegian with a nationalist sentiment would be against a union for that cause alone.

A military alliance would be great though in my opinion, but first we need to break up the EU, the UN, and quite likely NATO for it to be feasible, I also imagine political opposition and Islam have to be dealt with first, all in all this seems very unrealistic.

[3rdEye]

Originally Posted by Vale

Yes scandinavians are in many ways "united", but I hold my norwegian identity higher than my scandinavian one.

As for a union, Im not for it at all, some swedes seems to suffer from what is best described as "great-swedishness" and want Norway back under the imperial boot of Sweden. Norway have been dominated in hundreds of years by our neighbours Sweden and Denmark and I reckon any norwegian with a nationalist sentiment would be against a union for that cause alone.

Greater Sweden is not at all part of it as far as my idea of a union is concerned. When I mentioned centralisation along with negative connotations earlier on in this thread, I could have gone into greater detail. There have even been a forged revision of swedish history at the expense of regional culture so successful that most people believe it is the truth, so I am well aware of the danger of centralisation and dominance from the intranational experience.

Still I think you are entirely right. There are Swedes who suffer from that complex, and most Norwegians probably see it exactly the way you see it.

[Cobbler]

Originally Posted by sachsenkoenig

What do you think of a united Scandinavia?

It is an interesting concept, and a fairly reasonable one I think. Here's a Netherlander's take:

I have heard many ideas of pros and cons of such a nation, but it seems their is some sort of unity link between Scandinavians.

It is true, I have heard of this feeling of unity among Scandinavians that I have met. The languages of the countries could arguably be seen as dialects of one another, they are so close. And the shared history also makes this unity more significant.

Although rivals, being Scandinavian seems to be a proud thing in their lives. It seems they are Scandinavian before they are Norwegian or Swedish and I was curious on your oppinion?

It doesn't seem that farfetched. But even if they feel Norwegian or Swedish or Danish before Scandinavian, it might be comparable to how a Bavarian views himself as a Bavarian first, German second, I suppose.

Would you include Finland who speaks a Finnic language?

That might be a stretch. Finns are indeed "Nordic", but it doesn't seem to be a common consensus that they are "Scandinavian." Related, yes. But in the strict definition of the term, they would not be Scandinavian. In a Nordic union of some sort, it would make sense to have them included however.

Would you include Iceland who speaks a version of Old Norse?

Icelanders are Scandinavian. At least, more so than the Finns.

Overall, it does make sense, but you'd have to ensure the populations of the respective countries (such as Norway?) that it would be an equal union, and not one dominated by one country over the other.

~The Cobbler

[sachsenkoenig]

Vale
As for a union, Im not for it at all, some swedes seems to suffer from what is best described as "great-swedishness" and want Norway back under the imperial boot of Sweden. Norway have been dominated in hundreds of years by our neighbours Sweden and Denmark and I reckon any norwegian with a nationalist sentiment would be against a union for that cause alone.

In this united Scandinavia their would be no state dominance just one centralized government led by an elected leader or what ever it is you Scandinavians want to do to elect your leader. Their would be no Swedish dominance in this country if it was a Scandinavian union. I am not promoting the Swedish Empire.

Although I wonder if their would be a monarchy problem. Oh well, either way the King of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden are all cousins right?

Cobbler
It doesn't seem that farfetched. But even if they feel Norwegian or Swedish or Danish before Scandinavian, it might be comparable to how a Bavarian views himself as a Bavarian first, German second, I suppose.

There is a difference however between a Bavarian because Bavaria is a state in a country, Norway and Sweden are countries within a region and are not united. In most cases people are local before they are national, so in many cases in England and Englishman is English before he is British or a Welschman Welsh before he is English or British. Ever one has a certain pride for their home regions.
Icelanders are Scandinavian. At least, more so than the Finns.

Overall, it does make sense, but you'd have to ensure the populations of the respective countries (such as Norway?) that it would be an equal union, and not one dominated by one country over the other.

~The Cobbler

Ethnically Scandinavians, but Iceland is not in Scandinavia (Scandinavian Penninsula), it is just within the Scandinavian/Nordic sphere of influence that spans from Estonia to Greenland. I am not saying they shouldn't be included, I was just pointing out that Icelanders are the odd ones out between Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes because their language is more different (although similar). However this is just up for discussion.

[Lutiferre]

I am not too optimistic about a theoretical pan-Scandinavian union. If it were to exist, Copenhagen should be it's capital without doubt.

Today, we should focus on securing our own countries, and I have nothing against cooperation between the Scandinavian countries, which like with many other of our European neighbours could be very useful.

But any real work starts with the background of our own nations.

[Yago]

Originally Posted by sachsenkoenig

In this united Scandinavia their would be no state dominance just one centralized government led by an elected leader or what ever it is you Scandinavians want to do to elect your leader. Their would be no Swedish dominance in this country if it was a Scandinavian union.

Here there is one reason why I mentioned the importance of putting forward a model of structure. You have called in "the mother of all troubles", a centralised government.

Let us for a moment imagine the hypothetical case in which there would be a centralised government, let us say in Stockholm...

How long do you believe that it would take for Swedes in the area to become the source for a bureaucratic civil servant class disliked by Norwegians and Danes? Not to mention that the presence of a large population linked to political and bureaucratic issues in Stockholm, would be sooner or later resented by the local Swedes.

And this would happen whether it is Sockholm, Copenhagen or Oslo. Perhaps the one best solution for a centralised government would be one set up as far afield as possible, ideally in Rejkyavik, and give it no powers whatsoever.

Although I wonder if their would be a monarchy problem. Oh well, either way the King of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden are all cousins right?

All around Western Europe and part of Eastern Europe, nearly all royal families are related to each other to various degrees.


p.s.
Please, use the provided system of quoting to help others read your posts in a more clear fashion

[sachsenkoenig]

p.s.
Please, use the provided system of quoting to help others read your posts in a more clear fashion

is this how you do it?

[Yago]

Originally Posted by sachsenkoenig

is this how you do it?

Yes, thank you. It makes the reading more clear.

[Berrocscir]

I'm all for Scandinavian cultural fraternity and close trading relations, but not political unity. All european nations should remain independent, this decentralism will help safeguard the unique character of all European people's, while greater political unity will lead to a manufactured Europeanism similar to what the EU advocates.

[Gavril]

Talking about 'cultural similarities' seems to me an excuse for proposing this highly hypothetical union, but what no one has really adressed is the reason for doing so in the first place.