Norwegian and Swedish writers prove themselves ignorant of their own countries' history by stating that "Norway's independence from Sweden in 1905 has benefited and enriched the political culture of both countries" (Nordic support for independence, Letters, March 23).

Relations between the two countries are better now than before 1905, but the Scottish Government's proposal that Scotland should become independent in a monarchical union with Britain is similar to the pre-1905 Swedish-Norwegian union: a personal union between two independent kingdoms.

Norway was for centuries an integrated part of the Danish state, but, finding himself on the losing side of the Napoleonic Wars in 1814, King Frederik VI was forced to cede Norway to the king of Sweden. The Norwegians objected and declared their independence, which led to a brief war with Sweden, ending with the establishment of a negotiated union of crowns. The revised Norwegian constitution and the bilateral act of union both acknowledged Norway's independence.

It was one of the loosest unions in history. There were no shared institutions, except the king and the foreign service. There were separate constitutions, parliaments, governments, laws, courts, armies and churches. A common market existed between 1825 and 1895.

King Carl XIV Johan hoped the two states would eventually merge, but Norway jealously guarded its independence and resented Swedish attempts to interfere in Norwegian affairs. The last union king, Oscar II, eventually concluded that Carl XIV Johan had been too lenient in 1814; apparently he found that the informal nature of the union made it difficult to maintain.

On three occasions, revisions to the act of union were proposed, including the establishment of a union parliament, but nothing came of these suggestions. There were frequent disputes over symbols, such as the flag and the kings' insistence on using a Swedish ordinal number in both countries. Norway withdrew from the union in 1905.

If lessons can be learned from the Swedish-Norwegian union it is probably the difficulties of maintaining a personal union between two independent states, how such an arrangement can lead to incessant disputes over real and symbolic issues, and, as the 17 writers' confusion demonstrates, how a personal union is easily mixed up with a political union in the public's perception.

Trond Norén Isaksen

Historian and author

Bærum, Norway