Since I started to think about the notion of a unified Scandinavia, the thought has festered and grown and the more I contemplate the more I believe it would be a really good idea.
Of course there are obstacles and many and various questions need to be asked and answered, but the thought has merit and to me it is strange that no political figure or organization is pushing this agenda.
A few stats to first consider:
Country
|
inhabitants 2011
|
GDP/capita 2011
|
GDP - 2011 USD billion
|
Sweden
|
9,480,205
|
$43,000
|
$458
|
Norway
|
4,973,029
|
$53,300
|
$479.3
|
Denmark
|
5,543,453
|
$37,600
|
$333.20
|
Iceland
|
313,183
|
$38,500
|
$14.05
|
Finland
|
5,402,758
|
$47,386
|
$255.30
|
25,712,628
|
$43,957.20
|
$1,061
|
|
excluding Finland*
|
20,309,870
|
43,100
|
$805
|
*it
can be argued both that Finland is not part of Scandinavia and that she would
not be able or willing to join
What I regard as the hardest initial issues to get through are the
memberships in the EUSSR (Denmark, Sweden and Finland) and the NATO membership (Denmark, Norway, Iceland).
Of course I would argue that NATO membership should be refused and consequently no Scandinavia in direct alliance with warmongering U.S. and their bloodthirsty allies. New referendums about EU membership is a given and we already know that if such referendum occurs, especially with the notion of a unified Scandinavia in the balance, all current members would vote to leave.
The EU-part can probably be solved, but the NATO issue might be harder since we all know that politicians want more political warmongering entities, not less. I believe that our elected frauds would promote and push for membership, so this is something we need to keep an eye on.
When these hurdles are passed, we have several administrative and government formation issues to tackle.
Of course I would argue that NATO membership should be refused and consequently no Scandinavia in direct alliance with warmongering U.S. and their bloodthirsty allies. New referendums about EU membership is a given and we already know that if such referendum occurs, especially with the notion of a unified Scandinavia in the balance, all current members would vote to leave.
The EU-part can probably be solved, but the NATO issue might be harder since we all know that politicians want more political warmongering entities, not less. I believe that our elected frauds would promote and push for membership, so this is something we need to keep an eye on.
When these hurdles are passed, we have several administrative and government formation issues to tackle.
For example, should we continue to live with a constitutional
monarchy as Norway, Sweden and Denmark, or become a republic like Finland?
Personally I think that we should keep the Monarchy and that Queen Margrethe II
of Scandinavia (Denmark today) should be the new head of state. It’s the oldest
line of the monarchies, and since I believe that Copenhagen should be capital it’s
sort of goes together. Also we cannot circumvent the historical meaning of
having Queen Margrethe II as regent when her namesake created the Kalmar Union (1397-1523).
We should keep the Monarchy as its part of our history; it comes with
traditions, and since it is an unchangeable part of society it will work as
stabilizer. The other royal lines should get duchy-assignments or perhaps
assigned certain tasks such as eternal seat in some council(s) or some such.
As mentioned I believe that Copenhagen should be capital. It’s close to ancient (and still viable) trade routes and with the bridge over to Malmö the entire area is very suitable. It’s the capital closest to the continent and I see a lot of building- and development potential and I believe that within a few years the Copenhagen-Malmö capital will house 3-4 million people making it a hub for the new Scandinavian state.
As you can tell I am talking about a completely unified Scandinavia – not a union as EUSSR or a loose coalition. This may be the hardest pill to swallow for Norwegians and Finns, so I don´t believe it’s doable, but I believe it would be essential for the success of this idea. History shows us that if we want this to succeed we need an authoritative central power. Of course the Scandinavian heritage include local governance and certain amounts of decision made close to the ones effected, and one of the main reasons the Kalmar Union broke up was because the Danish royalty govern too much for themselves with little or no understanding of the freedom of the Swedish peasantry or local laws/rules/noblemen. Consequently there has to be a balance, but I strongly believe that central authority is necessary.
IF all of the above can be solved we come to the issue of how government should be organized, what constitution we should have and what set of laws there should be. This is a chapter by itself and I am probably not the best person to answer how this could work or how the transition could be organized, but generally speaking there has to be a clear and obvious foundation. This means that the constitutional laws need to be few, to the point and easy to understand.
I am not only taking as from my political viewpoint here. The foundations of this new set of laws need to be understood by all and give a clear directive about the freedoms and rights of inhabitants. This is very important, almost as important as content. The content CANNOT include arbitrary feminist stupidities or subjective ideas about what equality is. IF for some reason such madness will follow over from today’s laws (which it will) it should be in the common sections of ordinary laws. The constitution should address and apply for all and consequently we cannot have any sort of “right to work” or women’s rights to sit on every board – not in the constitution.
We also need a constitutional court – perhaps based in Oslo.
And finally we need to solve the problem of common denominators. The tax rates, military founding, municipal sizes and forms, etc. etc.
Of course the lowest common denominator SHOULD be the norm, but our leaders will see it differently. This will probably be the biggest problem as I see it, even though our politicians will play it cool and not see any problem at all.
The final controversy needed to be solved is that of language. Although all the Scandinavian languages are related (except for Finnish) the differences are still large enough to pose certain problems. Personally I believe that we should have one official language and that language should be Swedish. The reason is that Sweden is the biggest most populace country and Swedish is by far the most spoken language, and I believe we need one single official language. Naturally all other languages should have some kind of official stamp, perhaps as minority language, but in order to unify, truly unify, Scandinavia one language should be taught in all schools and be the one single official language.
Well, there you have a short version of what I believe to be a really good idea. Obviously I´ve skipped a few issues and just skimmed the surface here, but I just want to convey what is very likely to occur in during The Greatest Depression. Not my version perhaps, but I think we´ll see a more Scandinavian unity up ahead.
As mentioned I believe that Copenhagen should be capital. It’s close to ancient (and still viable) trade routes and with the bridge over to Malmö the entire area is very suitable. It’s the capital closest to the continent and I see a lot of building- and development potential and I believe that within a few years the Copenhagen-Malmö capital will house 3-4 million people making it a hub for the new Scandinavian state.
As you can tell I am talking about a completely unified Scandinavia – not a union as EUSSR or a loose coalition. This may be the hardest pill to swallow for Norwegians and Finns, so I don´t believe it’s doable, but I believe it would be essential for the success of this idea. History shows us that if we want this to succeed we need an authoritative central power. Of course the Scandinavian heritage include local governance and certain amounts of decision made close to the ones effected, and one of the main reasons the Kalmar Union broke up was because the Danish royalty govern too much for themselves with little or no understanding of the freedom of the Swedish peasantry or local laws/rules/noblemen. Consequently there has to be a balance, but I strongly believe that central authority is necessary.
IF all of the above can be solved we come to the issue of how government should be organized, what constitution we should have and what set of laws there should be. This is a chapter by itself and I am probably not the best person to answer how this could work or how the transition could be organized, but generally speaking there has to be a clear and obvious foundation. This means that the constitutional laws need to be few, to the point and easy to understand.
I am not only taking as from my political viewpoint here. The foundations of this new set of laws need to be understood by all and give a clear directive about the freedoms and rights of inhabitants. This is very important, almost as important as content. The content CANNOT include arbitrary feminist stupidities or subjective ideas about what equality is. IF for some reason such madness will follow over from today’s laws (which it will) it should be in the common sections of ordinary laws. The constitution should address and apply for all and consequently we cannot have any sort of “right to work” or women’s rights to sit on every board – not in the constitution.
We also need a constitutional court – perhaps based in Oslo.
And finally we need to solve the problem of common denominators. The tax rates, military founding, municipal sizes and forms, etc. etc.
Of course the lowest common denominator SHOULD be the norm, but our leaders will see it differently. This will probably be the biggest problem as I see it, even though our politicians will play it cool and not see any problem at all.
The final controversy needed to be solved is that of language. Although all the Scandinavian languages are related (except for Finnish) the differences are still large enough to pose certain problems. Personally I believe that we should have one official language and that language should be Swedish. The reason is that Sweden is the biggest most populace country and Swedish is by far the most spoken language, and I believe we need one single official language. Naturally all other languages should have some kind of official stamp, perhaps as minority language, but in order to unify, truly unify, Scandinavia one language should be taught in all schools and be the one single official language.
Well, there you have a short version of what I believe to be a really good idea. Obviously I´ve skipped a few issues and just skimmed the surface here, but I just want to convey what is very likely to occur in during The Greatest Depression. Not my version perhaps, but I think we´ll see a more Scandinavian unity up ahead.
Perhaps you should create a new language that incorporates words from languages except Finnish, because although the majority of Scandinavians speak Swedish, more people use the danish and norwegian alphabet with å, æ, ø than the Swedish ä and ö. How do you play on setting up parliament? Are you going have representatives from each country? Or perhaps like America's congree that has 2 houses?
ReplyDeleteI was thinking the same actually. Its easy to replace the Swedish Ö with a ø for example. So, yes of course a few such things need to be switched or taken into account.
ReplyDeleteThe parliament or houses is a matter of debate. I would however prefer that we had one "riksdag" or parliament as today with perhaps 201 voted in morons from different parties as the system works today in all Scandinavian countries. And then one "second house" of about 101 people where people are directly voted in, no political affiliation needed and voted in by each region - so the number depends on the number of regions. Their main assignment would be to allow/sign laws and uphold regional power and self-governance. And I would also like to see a third chamber of non-elected Monarchs and Dukes with similar assignment as the second one. With a fourth institution of Constitutional Court it would be very hard to start wars, change the constitution or go over budget. Everyone should keep each other in check. Of course with better ground structure then for ex. in USA.