Positives for a Free Scotland II

Recently I’ve had a health issue, and had to have various procedures and scans to access the problem and now another wait. Then a pre-op. As I read of the consultants and junior doctors continued strikes in England over pay and conditions, and the NHS there being eroded and under-funded. I am very grateful to live in Scotland and that I don’t have to worry that consultants or doctors are on strike here. Its bad enough waiting a week for test results.  

I’m glad my three grown-up children don’t have huge levels of student debt to pay off. I’m glad that Scotland is at least trying to protect health care for all and the NHS. I’m glad that under Alex Salmond, Scotland developed it’s renewable potential. I’m also grateful that Sturgeon prioritised babies, nursery and childcare - with baby boxes and a child payment uplift, because she recognised that you can forget the next fifteen years at school if children get off to a bad start in life. 

 

I’m glad Scotland wants to protect food safety (but worry we won’t be “allowed” to).  Yes the Scottish government made errors over the ferry procurement – but at the same time the Queensferry crossing was a success story. I’m certainly grateful to live in a Scotland where most people prioritise a well being economy, where all children deserve fair opportunities; where people value equality and a greener Scotland. The trouble is Scotland doesn’t have the levers to achieve this or a modern democracy - all it can do under the devolved settlement is to tinker at the edges.

 

In a federal state the central government has clearly defined roles – federal roads, foreign police – and they don’t have to “allow’ the states to do anything! This confusing and unworkable devolved UK system is a mess and not used anywhere else. In a federal state the central government doesn’t “allow” the states broadcasting rights, immigration laws, or vat rates. Each state has its own laws for starters. I lived several years in Chicago and it surprised me greatly, that major decisions were made at the local level. (while things in the US are not perfect by any means). I also didn’t realise back then I should be a proud Scot. So many Scots are ignorant of our own heritage and history. 

 

The UK system is like a parent/ child – where Whitehall will only 'allow' the Scottish people certain rights, over our own lives if it so chooses. The British state since inception, has been fixated on centralized control, of supposed “stability” of the Crown in Parliament.

 

I’m proud Scotland has leading universities and innovative scientists, I’m proud Scotland has major international festivals and a successful creative community of artists and musicians. I’m proud Scotland has a wealth of resources – whisky, quality food, and the potential to be a world leader in renewables. 

 

Even while most Scots want better equality and democracy, we don’t have the devolved levers tover the economy o achieve this – and sadly Scotland is one of the most unequal and exploited nations in the developed world. Like many Scots I wasn’t taught to be a proud Scot at school - but to feel second rate to London and its history. Just as in Northern Ireland where children are taught about English rivers, but not about their own Irish rivers!

 

The union believes in a mono-global culture. In the 1800s European countries realised to harness their real potential they must have national renewal and national aspiration and the map of Europe changed from huge empires to the small nations of today. Scotland must join this Europe of sovereign, free nations. In order to shape and control our future destiny.

 

We can still share security and co-operate on defence with rUK, independence just means that Scots voices have a say and not just a tiny Tory elite.

Union with David Olusoga BBC Review

 

While Olisoga is an informed historian, and consulted many experts and this is a highly watchable  if it times biased program.

However he at times skims over relevant sections of the 320 years of the union between Scotland and England 1707 and later of the four nations to form the United Kingdom is 1801.

For instance he focuses on the hardships in Ireland and of their being bribed to join the United kingdom union in 1801 – but does mot mention the mass murders and of the obliteration of the highland way of life in Scotland after the Jacobite 45, when the clans were disarmed. There is no mention of the Scottish Parcel of Rogues who sold Scotland for bribes.

The only way to be able to wear the kilt was to join the British highland regiments. 

Union flags designs of James VI

After the JACOBITE 45 rebellion Olusoga states “ the British state, with the help of some clan chiefs, launched a campaign to repress the Scots” –what they really did was mass murder of women and children and the destruction of the highland way of life. the huge contribution Scotland, as the workers of the empire made to the empire is ignored, while England were the rulesr is ignored. 

By the 18^th century – one in 10 lived in London – which became the centre of Printing, key port, trade artery, parliament, monarchy, finance, banking, theatre, arts and culture. Why is it good that so many had to travel to London to make their fortune?

Then there’s the episode Four on Union and Disunion – which focuses on Wales and Ireland, with only a mention of the closing of Ravenscraig steel work at Motherwell – but no mention of Scotland’s oil which was used by Westminster to increase spending on London. 

Olusoga had a chat with A professor from Oxford who stated, ‘There isn’t a long history of power being spread outside the capitol…the starting dates of universities in the north, many are just over a 100 years old. Civic buildings are not that old.” This by implication gives the strong impression that the rest of Britain, outside of London, is backward and uncultured. This is basically untrue. 

Scotland boasts 4 of the UKs oldest universities – Oxford and Cambridge were initially centres of clerical teachings late 1090s: in the 1400s it was Scottish universities which were the four leading centres of learning – St Andrews 1410, Glasgow 1451, Aberdeen 1495, Edinburgh 1583. And it wasn’t until the 1800s that England set up its universities - Manchester 1824, London 1826, Durham 1832.

Olusoga also misses the crucial point that Scotland’s self-determination is about democracy and democratic rights and NOT identity at all. 

Dependency Supporters

Choice between Scotland’s independent sovereignty and the politics of DEPENDENCY 

Language really matters. I agree with the Wee Ginger Dog we must stop calling those who “advocate dependency” - unionists, which implies a positive working together, when this is not happening  at all. Scotland is ignored, Scotland’s resources have been plundered, and her voice suppressed. Its crucial we stop using the false term “unionist” and instead call those who want to hold Scotland back – “dependency supporters.” This UK is very much not a partnership – the term unionist is fake and  misleading. A union refers to a partnership (or marriage) one in which each partner has an equal say - of compromise, collaboration, negotiations. 

 

Culture and language drive and are ahead of our politics. This is about Scotland’s voice.

The policy makers in London are using derogatory language against those who believe in Scots sovereignty. – they use terms such as ‘separatist’ and ‘nationalists’ to imply Scots are driven by ideological greed, ignorance, selfishness, divisiveness. While they know full well most Scots want to work in an indy nation in the EU trading block and be international, left of centre and outward looking. 

For centuries Scotland has been a seafaring international and trading nation with our great seaports (now mostly closed apart from apart from Aberdeen). Scotland does not need to trade via the bottleneck of Dover - we can trade direct to Europe as Ireland does.

 

Succession actor Brian Cox suggests the British isles can be a “Federation of sovereign states, one in which we can all b citizens and participate, and have an equal say and pull together for the common good of all.” At the moment this is not happening here UK, because this is not a partnership. Its about 3 smaller nations being dependent on all rules, policies and decisions set in London, for the benefit of the south of England, in a highly centralized monarchy/ parliamentary sovereignty/ power structure, where the Crown is used to assert power, for the benefit of the empire state not the people. And operates its dirty money London Laundromat. Much more centralized than a century ago.

(Please note – Labour and Conservatives are English political parties. After Scotland’s indy Scotland needs its own political parties, which would naturally evolve here, to cover differing views. Scotland’s indy is about more local and accountable government.) 

 

Some refer to England as the “parent state” and they believe they own Scotland. By contrast most Scots believe that back 300 years ago in 1707, Scotland, as one of the oldest nations in Europe, with its rich diverse history, and deep lasting connections to scholarly learning in Paris from the time of Reformation - as explorers, as mercenaries, and innovators. - that Scotland entered into a voluntary partnership with England for trading reasons. At that time Scotland had 1million people, England had 4 million. Historians tell us Scotland was never a colony – yet if surveys asked the English or Scots if they believed Scotland is a colony, they will surely say yes – as we do not have self government but are ruled from the capital of another nation. 

 

There’s been a general ignorance of Scots history and Scots culture is not celebrated by Dependence supporters. That’s if Scots know any of their history, after decades of being only taught English history in our schools. Scotland was not conquered in 1690, even though Cromwell tried and got as far as Dunnottar castle. In fact Charles II was crowned firstly at Scone on our Stone of Destiny. Culloden was the last pitched battle here UK – there were Scots on both sides, as well as French and Irish. These were religious battles. Crucially at Charles III ascension he pledged the freedom of Scotland’s church. 

The big question is, how efficiently does Devolution work – with civil servants in London making decisions? What does devolution mean, when Scotland is allowed to run only some of its affairs? 

 

It’s a confused, messy picture. Do dependency advocates think that devolution works well, because most Scots are totally confused - what is reserved, what’s run here? Does Scotland run its own energy policy (no, the UK runs energy but has had no energy policy), does Scotland run its economy and tax (no). After leaving the EU, the London government now interferes in many devolved matters. So its even more confusing. Tories appear intent on wrecking devolution settlements. 

 

Back before WW1 Scotland ran more of its own affairs. This isn’t about Edinburgh becoming another centralising London either but about greater local control. This isn’t about personalities – its about the wider yes and civic movement. A good plan is for a Citizens Assembly to grow our ideas for the way ahead, organically from the ground up. That’s the only way to grow support for our independence. It appears from studies that many Scots are very confused over what devolution means, what independence means in todays world of interconnections over trade (as in the EU). I believe it would be very helpful for all sides, ideas and views, to clarify what both these arrangements really will mean. 

 

It all depends on whether you see the UK as a free democracy or an empire state more concerned with the global empire – than the people who live here. The UK requires radical reforming on all levels and to put people first! This is a struggle between Westminster sovereignty and the sovereignty of the Scottish people. Since union 1707 Scotland has always been run separately with a Secretary of State. Of course the uK likes confusion and has no constitution. We need clearer and simpler details of what devolution and independence means for us. Most voters are confused and I am sure the UK encourages confusion just as there no clear constitution. 

 

 

Politics today is complex

I read that Norway has nine political parties – (re a letter National). This is complex and there are online questionnaires listing say 30 of the main issues that concern people, and after voters rate the issues that matter to them, they can then decide which party to vote for. Coalition government leads to more consensual, co-operative government and NOT “chaos” as put forward by the English Tories.

Back 19^th century it used to be the main concern of the English political parties was raising taxes to fight the French, over territory. Or how to get rich quick. (In the alternative reality, where the Jacobites won, Scotland would be looking for treaties and trade links across Europe. And 250 years ago Burns wrote – of the poison of untold wealth, and how we all deserve equal rights and opportunities. Nothing much changes!)

So this binary two-party, confrontational left or right English political parties, offers too simplistic a choice, with its out-dated first-past-the-post electoral system, that encourages this binary choice.

Meanwhile the English Labour party is seriously spilt between those wanting the elitist status quo and those wanting reform, as the party continues to hark back to the past rather than addressing the pressing issues of the present: and the English Tory party has morphed into Ukip!

The English Tories rather than co-operative, modern government, believe they have to Lord it over others! The Tory word is not its bond either: Johnson only signed the Northern Ireland Protocol to "Get Brexit Done" and get himself re-elected. Most insidiously the British propaganda machine implies an open, fair democracy, when its fairly obvious this isn’t the case.

BoJo claims he wants a high pay Britain by stopping immigration (??) – the real way is by closing private schools and greatly improving education and opportunities for all our children. It appears there is a serious lack of education of both History and Geography generally, never mind Business or Science! In English schools they specialize early to two subjects. In the Scottish system its long been considered important to have a broad education to better understand and have a wider outlook, before any later specialization.

Gerry Hassan writes of a ‘Progressive Alliance” that works seriously for reform of the out-dated UK political system, to get rid of first-past-the-post and embrace a PR (proportional representation) voting system. (This is how Tories can be taken out of government, National Oct 6, 2021) Of course in my view, there is too much tension and strain in this broken system of a “united” Kingdom, of enforcement rather than consent. The English Tories are dismantling democracy and devolution in the UK and working towards ever more destructive centralization. As this Westminster Tory government is not voted for by Scots, this is creating an unsustainable situation.

Today’s Politics is far more complex then in the past - with the environmental crisis, free trade deals, equal rights, security and cyber space, energy supplies, monetary and financial markets, trans rights, child protection, health provision, media and press, education systems, connectivity and infrastructure, industry and business, arts and culture, pandemics, welfare, pensions and social security, economy and tax systems, more I’m sure. Scotland’s independence is not about the English people butabout their out-of-touch ignorant elites.

The words of Burn’s song Scots Wa Hae were not merely about Bruce, but about all freedom fighters against oppression. Kevin McKenna (Its past time to open Pandora’s box) writes of the Tories as ‘extremists’ and of their control of the UK media and Press. Without control of news outlets, many will continue to be fooled by England’s Tory misinformation. And when Scotland gains its independence, we must ban foreign political parties. The biggest issue becomes how can we control the message? “Stronger for Scotland” is not good enough – who is stronger? HOW CAN WE BE “A NATION AGAIN”

Great Britain is a Landmass and not a country

 

 I found a useful Historic page – GB or Great Britain is NOT a country but a landmass and UK came into being in 1801 when Ireland was brought into the union – and not in 1707.  

I found a useful Historic page – GB or Great Britain is NOT a country but a landmass and UK came into being in 1801 when Ireland was brought into the union – and not in 1707.

 

GB is known as ‘Great’ because it is the largest island in the British Isles and houses the countries of England, Scotland and Wales within its shores.  Great Britain came into use to refer to the island. However, that name had no official significance until 1707, when the island's rival kingdoms of England and Scotland were united as the Kingdom of Great Britain.

 

When was the UK established? Although some people argue that the UK was formed in 1707 by the Act of Union between England, Wales and Scotland, the name United Kingdom wasn’t adopted until 1801 when Ireland was brought into the union.

**The United Kingdom (UK)  The UK is short for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland… quite a mouthful! It is a sovereign state (in the same way as France or the USA) but is made up of four countries; England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For Americans, the best analogy would be that the UK is like the USA, whilst its four consistent countries are like states.

There is a long and complicated history that follows the formation of the United Kingdom, but here are the highlights:
c. 925 – The Kingdom of England. Established by the unification of Anglo-Saxon tribes across modern day England.
1536 – Kingdom of England and Wales. A bill enacted by King Henry VIII which effectively made England and Wales the same country, governed by the same laws. Henry Tudor also declared himself King of Ireland in 
1707 – Kingdom of Great Britain. The Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) joined with the Kingdom of Scotland to form The Kingdom of Great Britain.
1801 – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Ireland joins the union, and once again the name changes.
1922 – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland (Eire, or ‘Southern Ireland’) withdraws from the union, leaving just the northern counties of Ireland. This is the UK that remains to this day.

So when was the UK established? Although some people argue that the UK was formed in 1707 by the Act of Union between England, Wales and Scotland, the name United Kingdom wasn’t adopted until 1801 when Ireland was brought into the union.

Great Britain (sometimes just referred to as ‘Britain’): Great Britain is not a country; it’s a landmass. It is known as ‘Great’ because it is the largest island in the British Isles, and houses the countries of England, Scotland and Wales within its shores.

The name Britain derives from the Roman word Britannia, but there are two conflicting arguments about why the ‘Great’ was stuck on the front of it. The first is that it is used to distinguish Britain from its similar sounding, but much smaller French neighbour, Brittany. The second reason is due to the ego of a certain King James I, who wanted to make it abundantly clear that he wasn’t just the king of the old Roman Britain  (which only included England and some of Wales), but of the entire island; thus he referred to himself as King of Great Britain.

The British Isles:  The British Isles is the name of a group of islands situated off the north western corner of mainland Europe. It is made up of Great Britain, Ireland, The Isle of Man, The Isles of Scilly, The Channel Islands (including Guernsey, Jersey, Sark and Alderney), as well as over 6,000 other smaller islands. It is perhaps understandable then that England is often (although incorrectly) used as a term to describe the whole of the UK.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-UK-Great-Britain-Whats-the-Difference/

**So there you have it! If you’re still a bit confused over the differences, here’s a quick summary:

The UK – a sovereign state that includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Great Britain – an island situated off the north west coast of Europe.

British Isles – a collection of over 6,000 islands, of which Great Britain is the largest.

England – a country within the UK.

Remembering 2014!

I wish now I’d kept a diary during the 2014 referendum time – which was such an enriching and energised and enlightenment time. With the exciting exchanges of ideas of how we might build a fairer, greener and more equal Scotland. It was full of expectant hopes. We looked to other thriving small nations as a way forward – such as Denmark, Finland, Norway. Our northern neighbours. Scotland is as ancient and has equally excellent resources. Why wouldn’t Scotland thrive w thought? 

It wasn’t to be with the vote 45/45% spilt and sadly many Anglo Scots prefer being tied to a Tory administration. Then again Scotland has practically no independent media, so what else did we expect with British nationalist propaganda flooding our airwaves. 

Brexit Questions - Change is Coming

 As water leaks through the crumbling Westminster roofs, and its labyrinth of corridors, it has been found greatly wanting and completely unable to deal with modern challenges. The Brexit debates, like a dangerous football, have thrown everything up in the air – with no written constitution, or interactive democracy.  Other leaders are aghast at how out-of-touch and not fit for purpose Westminster is. 

Three years ago 2016 before all this Brexit happened, few really cared about whether the UK was in or out of the EU, and I never saw anyone marching on the streets over this EU question. It was simply an institution like Nato or the Commonwealth – that was an important and accepted part of our lives. (People are marching though against climate change: we may only have 10 years to save our planet!)

Britain has suffered severe upheavals and ups and downs - before the dark days of war, the strikes of the late 60s, the Thatcher years, the Iraq war during Blair. The 2008 crash crisis worldwide. It seemed that the EU offered some stability and also peace and prosperity, surely important issues? So why did those in England want to leave the EU, and blamed the EU even, with the rise of Ukip? What was going on? Is this merely an uprising of populist far right bigotry as some argue? Or something much deeper? Or why some English voters believe England is not a sovereign country that is simply operating in at trading union?

An embarrassment. Its extremely worrying the decay, incompetence  and inability to govern this whole process has highlighted. Many appear to forget the boom and bust we used to suffer in Britain before we joined the EU 40 years ago. It meant high interest rates, inflation and all kinds of suffering and uncertainty. That’s what will be in store for us again once we leave the stability provided by being in the EU. This is partly driven by the fact that Germany in particular, always aims for a stable economy based on solid manufacturing, rather than the uncertainty and debt -ridden roulette of the London financial markets. 

The UK has been led by a poor leader, who is unable to empathize or collaborate? Why are MPs pursuing an ill-thought out policy that will make us all poorer? Why was there no real planning or idea of what Brexit really meant? What was it really all about?  Restoring past glories? Keeping the UK union together, when the cracks only get wider? Restoring Britishness’ and Union jacks? I'm really worried about the Americanization here in the UK and the privatising of health care and more. Where will it all lead?

The British Tory ship steams ahead, with no destination, no captain, and no map. What are we Scots to do? Can Brit Nats and Scots Nats exist side by side? Should we scramble for life rafts – or accept this laughable chaos? Or instead take control of our own Scottish resources? For now we need to let the anchors rise and the dust settle – and why does Nicola have explain her every move, when other politicians explain nothing?  Why are our respected MPs snubbed as irrelevant? Its insulting to the Scots nation.

Scotland needs to protect its significant resources by emulating countries like Norway (which is in EFTA) and also sets regulations to protect its environment, industries and by promoting Norway’s own oil company (which prevents multi-nationals exploiting their wealth). There are many examples of small, indy nations that operate very successfully in a larger trading block. There are no examples of a country operating successfully in a trading block, and then deciding to leave these treaties with no plan over its future! All we know is Brexit means leaving present agreements, but not what it actually wants! What a mess.

Why I want independence

I believe a nation is best served making its own decisions, in its own best interests – and that those in a foreign nation are not best able to make decisions for us. To flourish, Scotland must break free of the chains of English colonization and be an independent European nation once again. 

Irelands Road to Freedom

Act of Union between Ireland and England 1801.

Easter Rising 1916, Irish Free State.

Thirty Years of Troubles Northern Ireland with a great deal of violence  - 1960s – 1990s.

Northern Irish Peace Agreement - (1998) - The Good Friday Agreement Belfast April 1998. (Comhaontú Aoine an Chéasta) –  Northern Ireland system of devolved government is based on the agreement - created a number of institutions between Northern Ireland and Ireland - and between the Ireland and the UK.  
It was clear to me, having Irish parents, that during the Brexit debates that no attention was paid to the Irish dilemma over the EU customs and trading union. Just like Scotland, Ireland was a mere after thought. No one in Ireland wants a return to a hard border – there are always nutters on either side just looking for an excuse. Why should Ireland give up its peace and prosperity? Ireland is crucially split on ancient religious grounds

Scotland too has opposite needs to England – our farming is mostly hill rather than arable; our fishing rather than cars is a major concern; we want to welcome young immigrant workers to grow our economy and support an older population; Scotland wants to pursue progressive socialist policies to work for a more socially inclusive nation – where England wants to be a low regulated, low wage economy like a new Singapore. (which is unacceptable for the EU).

AND on a personal note. My parents were from Co Down and Belfast and I visited there every summer from Scotland. I understand the deep divisions and problems there (unlike many London politicians). These divisions will not be easily healed. And I feel extremely angry at the thought that some feel a hard border is an answer there – just because of this crazy Brexit. Brexit is about looking backward.  While my husband's father came form Kilkenny in southern Ireland.

A hundred years ago Ireland embraced its rich heritage and culture – and developed its own identity again. Many had to die so Ireland could achieve self government. I hope Scotland can achieve this dream too – peacefully and through informed debate for a healthier partnership with its larger partner England. Scotland is often an after thought. 

England has pursued a policy of over-centralised government for more than a century, particularly during the wars and then complains of too many immigrants! By contrast European parliament encourages healthy regionalization and encouraging regional language. Why is wanting more local government against the national interest? In fact the UK is the most lop-sided geographically unbalanced major country in the world!

The great poet WB Yeats, was persuaded to write on the old Irish  songs, heritage and ballads, at the same time he lived in London and was before this part of the Anglo-Irish group who dominated Irish politics.

After the hangings of the Irish rebels in the Easter rising Yeats wrote -

his poem 'Easter 1916' 

I write it out in a verse -

MacDonagh and MacBride

And Connolly and Pearse

Now and in time to be,

Wherever green is worn,

Are changed, changed utterly: (YB Yeats)

The Northern Ireland peace process is often considered to cover the events leading up to the 1994 Provisional Irish Republican Army ( IRA) ceasefire and the end of the violence Troubles, and the Good Friday Agreement 1998.

Issues relating to Sovereignty, civil and cultural rights, decommissioning of weapons, justice and policing. The agreement was approved by voters across the island of Ireland in two referendums held on 22 May 1998. The British-Irish Agreement came into force on 2 December 1999.  The DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) was the only major political group in Northern Ireland to oppose the Good Friday Agreement.

Ultimately between Scotland and England - a good partnership for trade, security, environment. and defence.. rather than control from Westminster

The European countries are committed firstly to Peace and Prosperity – any other consideration is secondary. Ireland exemplifies and tells us the real UK conflict. Also that harmful over centralization in the south east.

Why should Peace and Prosperity be sacrificed by Scotland, the EU or Ireland just to suit some backward looking Tory politicians we have not voted for?

Norway's Independence

Scotland is often compared to Norway - in terms of population, oil, geography, long coastline, domination by an external power and more...

Norway was for 430 years tied to a union (due to Royal manoeuvrings much like here in the UK) first with Denmark and then with Sweden) For centuries Copenhagen was the cultural and business capital. Some of the union worked well with Norway trading wood, fish to Denmark. Eventually though in 1905 , Norway negotiated a peaceful separation from Sweden. It is not possible that Norway would ever wish to go back! Norway has a long border with Sweden too (just like Scotland and England) and both countries appear to manage their own sovereignty.

The Union with Denmark lasted between 1388 – 1814) – 434 years.

“Known as the 400-Year-Night.” Norway joined the Kalmar Union of all the Nordic countries ( ) in 1388.

The KALMAR UNION 1388 - King Magnus VII ruled Norway to 1350 when his son became Haakon VI. He married Margaret, daughter of King Valdemar IV of Denmark. In 1379 his son Olaf IV, at ten, accession to both the thrones of Norway and Denmark led to a personal union. Olaf's mother, Queen Margaret, managed the affairs of Denmark and Norway and wanted a union with Sweden, by having Olaf elected to the Swedish throne. Olaf IV died suddenly in 1388 and Denmark and Norway crowned Margaret as a temporary ruler. Queen Margaret decided on Eric of Pomeria, grandson of her sister to be king. Thus at an all-Scandinavian meeting held at Kalmar, Eric was elected King of the Scandinavian countries. Royal politics resulted in personal unions between all the Nordic countries and the thrones of Norway, Denmark and Sweden were under the control of Queen Margaret - known as the KALMAR UNION. (In 1521 Sweden broke out of the UNION)

The "400-Year Night” - Norway remained in a union with Denmark until 1814, a total of 434 years. In the 19^th century, the national romanticism was known as the "400-Year Night", since the kingdom’s entire royal, intellectual and administrative power was centred in Copenhagen Denmark. Denmark supported Norway's needs for grain and food supplies, while Norway supplied Denmark with timber, metal, and fish. A great famine of 1695–96 killed 10% of Norway's population. The harvest failed in Scandinavia at least nine times between 1740 and 1800, with great loss of life. After Denmark–Norway was attacked by the UK in the Battle of Copenhagen, it entered into an alliance with Napoleon. Denmark lost in 1814, and ceded Norway to the king of Sweden, while the old Norwegian provinces of Iceland, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands remained with the Danish crown. 

**Norway took this opportunity to declare independence and adopted a constitution based on American and French models, and elected the Crown Prince of Denmark and Norway, Christian Frederick king in 1814. This is the famous Syttende Mai (Seventeenth of May) holiday celebrated by Norwegians and is the Norwegian Constitution Day.
Norwegian-Swedish War and Union with Sweden 1814 - Norwegian opposition to the great powers' decision to link Norway with Sweden caused war to break out. Sweden's military was not strong enough to defeat the Norway and Norway's treasury was not large enough to support a long war. British and Russian navies blockaded the Norwegian coast. They were forced to negotiate Convention of Moss and Union with Sweden. Christian Frederik abdicated the Norwegian throne and authorised the Parliament of Norway to make the necessary constitutional amendments to allow for the Personal union that Norway was forced to accept. On 4 November 1814 the Parliament (Storting) elected Charles XIII of Sweden as king of Norway.

Norwegian romantic nationalism - Norway kept its own liberal, independent institutions except for the foreign service. Following the recession caused by the Napoleonic Wars, economic development of Norway remained slow until economic growth began around 1830.  Norwegians sought to define and express a distinct national character. The movement covered all branches of culture, including literature Henrik Wegeland[1808–1845], Biomstierne Biomson[1832–1910], Peter Christen Asbionsen[1812–1845], Jergen Moe [1813–1882]), painting Hans Gude[1825–1903], Adolph Tidemand[1814–1876]), music Edvard Grieg [1843–1907]), and even language policy, where attempts to define a native written language for Norway led to today's two official written forms for Norwegian: Bokmai and Nynorsk.

King Charles III John, throne Norway and Sweden 1818 - 1844, was the second king after Norway's union with Sweden. He protected the constitution and liberties but he was also ruthless in the use of paid informers, secret police and restrictions on the freedom of the press to put down public movements for reform— in particular the Norwegian national independence movement.

**Dissolution of the union 1905 - Christian Michelsen, a shipping magnate and PM of Norway, 1905 - 1907, played a crucial role in the peaceful separation of Norway from Sweden in 1905. A national referendum confirmed the people's preference for a monarchy. No Norwegian could legitimately claim the throne because none was able to prove relationship to medieval royalty and in European tradition royal or "blue" blood is a precondition for laying claim to the throne. The government offered the throne of Norway to a prince of the German royal House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. Prince Carl of Denmark was unanimously elected king by the Norwegian parliament, the first king of a fully independent Norway in 508 years (1397: Kalmar Union). He took the name Haakon VII. In 1905, the country welcomed the prince from neighbouring Denmark, his wife Maud of Wales and their young son to re-establish Norway's royal house. Following centuries of close ties between Norway and Denmark.

Norway is considered to be one of the most developed democracies and states of justice in the world. From 1814, c. 45% of men (25 years and older) had the right to vote, whereas the United Kingdom had c. 20% (1832), Sweden c. 5% (1866), and Belgium c. 1.15% (1840). Since 2010, Norway has been classified as the world's most democratic country by the Democratic Index.