There are significant differences.
The big London airports are running at capacity, with planes landing 40 seconds apart at peak times. Aviation rules dictate the spacing be increased in poor conditions and the delays wre inevitable.
For the most part the Scandinavian airports are not running at capacity and are already running landings at a spacing generally well in excess of those required by foul weather rules so there is usually no change in their operational tempo.
Then on the ground there is the question of economics. In Scandinavia these adverse conditions are common enough to justify the expense of the ground equipment required to keep runways open.
In the UK such kit is typcially required less than 48 hours per year, and sometimes not at all, thus leaving no business case of the massive expense. Even if there were, we're back again to the increased aviation spacing rules holding everything back with the acthal flights so it would make little difference anyway.
So - for a change - it is a not case of inefficiency, ineptitude, or sheer twattishness that makes UK airports so problematic in these conditions. There are genuine operational, legal and financial considerations that dictate the response.
