Comment on United Kingdom of Scandinavia [Nordic language] by Kuusinen
These subdivisions make precious little sense - parts of them appear to be based on units only created in the 20th century, while other parts cross mountain ranges and would therefore be nigh impossible to govern efficiently. Also, Kalmar was never actually the capital of anything - the union is known in historiography as the Kalmar Union only because the actual union treaty was signed there.
Oh, and I agree with you on Kalmar, and am going to change the capital. What do you suggest?
Well, it's very much dependent on which of the three kingdoms was dominant going into the union, but if you're thinking of a neutral venue, I think Gothenburg is a really good location for it. Not only is it pretty much on the spot where Denmark, Norway and Sweden met until 1645, it's also roughly equidistant between the three capitals (Stockholm is a bit further away than the other two, but not really by that much), it's got a great natural port, and when Karl X Gustav had his dreams of Scandinavian empire, he envisioned it being the capital.
Thanks for the criticism, but remember, this is not a map of the Kalmar Union of the 14th century. I would suggest that these subdivisions are not from the Middle Ages, but indeed from the 20th century. That being said, maybe it still does not make sense, even in the 20th century, for subdivisions to cross mountains.
That's not what I was saying. What I was saying is there are some borders on this (like Hylte being part of Halland/Denmark rather than Småland/Götaland, or the exact border between the coastal and inland parts of South Ostrobothnia) that only came about in the later half of the 20th century, and would as such be hideously anachronistic in a TL where the original union stayed together. To make the borders less anachronistic, I'd suggest taking a good look at maps of the historical provinces of Sweden and Finland - as for Norway you'll be fine as long as you don't split the modern counties, and Denmark is fairly obvious, though I'd suggest moving Funen over to Jutland, as the two of them had the same law until the juridical unification in the 17th century (Scania and Zealand each had their own laws as well) and are still considered somewhat interconnected.
Wow, I see that you are quite well read in Scandinavian history 
Thanks! I'll take this into consideration if I make changes to the map.
Thanks! I'll take this into consideration if I make changes to the map.I'm from those parts, so naturally that's the history I take an interest in.
Do you have any suggestions as to what the Sjælland-Skåne territory could be called instead of Denmark?
Denmark works, frankly.