Re: I was thinking more "central" government, but OK. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 01/06/2012 02:04:11 AM
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.
I see; I did not realize the Act of Union (or perhaps acts supplemental to it) was so comprehensive, but that does explain much subsequent Scottish as well as American history. And the below linked British statute, which reads like a more specific version of the US Tenth Amendment.
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.
Ah, thanks for clearing up my confusion. The question was mostly facetious, but I confess I had always thought of pre-Norman England as completely Saxon, barring the odd Viking incursion.
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.
Well, but there is the rub, no? Disestablishing the state church by definition requires removing the church from public life, at least in any official capacity. It does not mean public officeholders must be non-religious, or preclude them making political appeals to fellow members of their church, but does make public offices and functions distinct from religious ones. If the state declares a public holiday on an explicitly religious basis, the state promotes religion; if it does so exclusively (and repeatedly) for one religion, it promotes that religion to the exclusion of (and thus discriminates against) all others.
I have not dug into it enough to be certain, but in Norways case it seems to depend on whom one asks. Initially I was told it was a simple matter of removing state authority over the church, but further investigation suggests there is, or rather was, some church involvement with purely secular matters that will now cease.