None of the Scandinavian countries is a Federation.
One could argue, after all, modern Scandinavia represents defederalization. One could also argue that it simply represents a lesser degree of federalism than previously existed, but still greater than in ancient times, when many sovereign, though small, regions dotted what are now integral larger ones. Judgement call: Is it strictly inaccurate to say the UK is the federal government for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but England is A federal government for Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Sussex and Wessex? Does it qualify if comprised of former states, or must they retain some level of government and organization associated with the local region?
Yes, it is inaccurate to say that the UK is a federation. In a federation, the component states give their authority to the central government, which has no authority beyond what it is given. There is no 10th Amendment in the UK. Legally speaking, the Westminster Parliament is all-powerful.
Also, why is Northumbria not Norsex? That has always bothered me and, as you are the closest person likely to know, I hold you answerable. 
Northumbria = North of the (River) Humber. The "-sex" in Wessex, Essex and Sussex means "Saxons", and the kingdoms of Deira and Bernicia (which later merged to become Northumbria) were settled by Angles, not Saxons.
And the answer to your question is nothing. It's a complete non-issue.
Then why does disestablishmentarianism exist (or, alternatively, why do the holidays)? Why change national law if no one cares? Clearly some people care; they stood up in parliament and said so point blank and on the public record.
As far as the UK is concerned, disestablishmentarianism exists because there are people who want the Church of England not do have anything to do with secular government any more. This would mean the Queen no longer being head of the church, there no longer being 26 automatic seats in Parliament for bishops, and no longer having the Prime Minister effectively appoint the bishops. I can't speak for Norway.
I assume it's in Norway that parliamentarians have been proposing changes to the holiday calendar. So esto some people in Scandinavia do care, my point is that if you disestablish the church, no consequences automatically follow for public holidays. Which is what I understood you to be asking. Following disestablishment, Parliament might choose to change the holiday calendar or leave it as it is, depending on to what extent they insist on removing all traces of religion, however benign, from public life.
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
For Our Nordmenn: What Happens to Federal Religious Holidays in the Absence of a State Church?
- 27/05/2012 01:33:20 PM
1082 Views
Nothing, they are federal holidays still because of strong unions, not religion
- 27/05/2012 06:58:52 PM
503 Views
Hypocrisy FTW, eh? 
- 27/05/2012 11:04:38 PM
649 Views
- 27/05/2012 11:04:38 PM
649 Views
No.
- 27/05/2012 11:16:11 PM
470 Views
Again, some people manifestly care; just not enough to relinquish a paid holiday.
- 28/05/2012 01:48:26 AM
499 Views
Nothing.
- 27/05/2012 07:03:07 PM
463 Views
Replacing it with another, secular, holiday seems the responsible thing to do.
- 27/05/2012 11:15:11 PM
433 Views
People. Don't. Care.
- 27/05/2012 11:29:07 PM
491 Views
If people did not care, disestablishmentarianism (and its antithesis) would not exist.
- 28/05/2012 01:41:18 AM
611 Views
Most of them are stolen from heden traditions and have nothing to do with christianity.
- 27/05/2012 07:15:55 PM
680 Views
Since two resident history buffs recently excoriated me for that claim, I have no wish to revisit it
- 27/05/2012 11:27:13 PM
599 Views
Thanksgiving isn't a religious holiday.
- 27/05/2012 08:43:58 PM
536 Views
That is rather debatable.
- 28/05/2012 12:08:53 AM
598 Views
The Distinction
- 29/05/2012 07:41:47 PM
552 Views
Thanksgiving was a purely federal institution. FDR dictated the date it's celebrated
- 30/05/2012 03:22:09 AM
488 Views
That distinction would be an almost wholly Roman Catholic (or possibly Greek Orthodox) one.
- 01/06/2012 01:47:12 AM
444 Views
How do you come to four for Canada?
- 27/05/2012 11:29:57 PM
431 Views
Because I counted Thankgiving, and holidays for federal employees rather than just statutory ones.
- 28/05/2012 02:03:55 AM
586 Views
Re: Because I counted Thankgiving, and holidays for federal employees rather...
- 28/05/2012 04:31:14 AM
489 Views
Well, you know better than I, but I found the 1580s date interesting.
- 28/05/2012 04:08:31 PM
660 Views
Re: Well, you no better than I, but I found the 1580s date interesting.
- 29/05/2012 01:15:52 AM
474 Views
Ireland has a tonne of religious public holidays yet no state religion.
- 28/05/2012 12:48:55 AM
506 Views
I wondered how that would shake out for the rest of Europe, or at least Western Europe.
- 28/05/2012 02:29:16 AM
526 Views
It's funny how you use "federal" to mean "mandated by national government".
- 28/05/2012 03:49:17 PM
465 Views
I was thinking more "central" government, but OK.
- 28/05/2012 04:26:38 PM
492 Views
Re: I was thinking more "central" government, but OK.
- 28/05/2012 04:50:32 PM
465 Views
Re: I was thinking more "central" government, but OK.
- 01/06/2012 02:03:40 AM
656 Views
I think you've got the Scotland Act backwards.
- 01/06/2012 09:48:36 AM
588 Views
There's a lot of countries that call "devolution" federalism, though.
- 01/06/2012 09:52:23 PM
561 Views
What about when most of the country is still under central control?
- 02/06/2012 10:25:47 AM
463 Views