Like I said before, you are looking at things to simplistic. I suggest you read about the event leading up to the Union-breakup in 1905. IE, looking at political maps at the time, Norway is indeed listed as a seperate country, and Norway had a much greater influence abroad than Sweden due to it's immensly growing merchant fleet.
Why do you think we were allowed such a high degree of independence in 1814? A winter war in Norway would have been ugly, not to mention the intent to win the Norwegians over rather than force them. During the 1820's Norway fought to protect what they had won in 1814, to a great success. The strive protection of the constitution of 17th of may 1814 also spawned the 17th of may celebrations in the 1820s and onwarsds.
Carl Johan gave up reforming the Norwegian constitution during the 1830s creating an even more vibrant 17th of May celebration.
It was above all the holders of "embete", or higher office, who were responsible for creating the Constitution of Eidsvold. It was this group which stood guard over it against Carl Johan's encroachments in the 1820s. It was also this group which in fact ruled the country during the first two generations after 1814. From the 1830s the farmers began to awaken and became conscious of the power given them under the Constitution, and the 1870s and '80s were characterized by the fierce political struggle between the old ruling class -- the senior office holders and bourgeoisie -- on the one side, and the farmers and the liberal urban citizenry on the other.
On 7 June 1905 the union with Sweden was dissolved by a decision passed in the Storting. The dissolution was supported by a united population, more united perhaps than at any time before or since. This attitude was also to be reflected in the 17th of May celebrations. The differences between the parties were to give way to the feeling of unity. The 17th of May processions were now characterized by a feeling of fellowship and of rejoicing that the country had at last gained full independence.
The independence could however, been a lot less peaceful. Norway had built forts along the Swedish borders, soldiers lay in trenches, new armored steam ships had been bought, and was a considerable threat to a supposedly invading Sweden.
Simply put, this doesn't sound like the actions of a nation that doesn't have independence/self government, does it?
I would like to see Norway something similar to vassal status in EU2, with limited fareign office, and their free hands growing stronger year by year. That is a LOT more accurate than having Sweden in complete control over every province, and free to use the value gained from Norwegian provinces in Swedish ones for example.
Also, I am getting tired of people throwing the "you're just nationalistic" line every time people try to point out faults. And I highly doubt you have any knowledge of the Norwegian-Swedish realtionship beyond what you have read in this thread.
