In a big view we already saw how the populational structure follows paternal haplogroups. Look here. But how autosomal and ydna match overally? I think that considerably well in Western Europe and Southern Europe, but quite poorly in Scandinavia, Russia and Finland.
Let' look closer. British Isles are the most western country on both ydna and autosomal maps excluding Basques who also belong to the top R1b owners. In some locations British men are homogeneously R1b.
Some ethnicities in Balkan Peninsula with their high I2 are also easily distinguished.
The third distinguishable group consists of Finno-Ugrian and Finnic people in Russia and Finland.
The centre is populated by Germans, French and generally by Central Europeans being very close each other also by Fst figures. Another mainline group consists of Southeast European, including also Balkan Peninsula in general.
All those groups show similarity between autosomal and uniparental inheritances as far as I have noticed.
But when we go to the countries populated by R1a, I1 and N1c1 men in Northern Europe the picture starts to look blurry. Some Ydna statistics first. All numbers are from Eupedia's Ydna statistics, except Finnish numbers which are from T. Lappalainen et al. 2006. It is still the newest study about Finnish paternal haplogroups. I used this study regarding Finns because Eupedia doesn't give the east-west distrubution in Finland. However I checked that given numbers are in-line at country level.
Regional percents per haplogroup:
After taking notice of the similarities and differences between haplogroups let's look at the autosomal side. I collected these figures from online forums and the numbers are not absolutely trustworthy, but give us guidelines. FamilyTreeDna only can give true country averages regarding their service. Anyway, I am not cheating, this is what cool numbers say.
After those numeric figures let's put things together.
While in Scandinavia the haplogroup I is obviously the backbone of European Northlands (read the preprint of Lazaridis et. al and what it says about ancient genomes in Sweden), it in Finland turns to North Circumpolar, even though Ostrobothnians have more I1 than Scandinavians ( Scandinavia : 34,25%, Ostrobothnia: 47%). On the other hand in Russia the N1c1 has minimum effect on the autosomal results; in Russia the N proportion is 23% and in Otrobothnia 29%. However the autosomal result is very different, North Circumpolar 15,4% in Russia and 80,6% in Western Finland including Ostrobothnia. Russians still share the common genetic history with their western Slavic origin in a great deal. I can see many explanations for this different genetic transformation in Finland and Russia, as also in case of Finland compared to Scandinavia, but it is hard to see how it could be confirmed by genetic data.
Just keep in mind that I only make assumptions about how the autosomal and paternal genes are connected, but I am not the only one making this. In fact most of present-day academic researchers writing studies and amateur researchers making online blogs suppose same and there is good reasons to do it. In principle there are only three basic ways to deviate from the autosomal ancestry once in our ancestral past bound with uniparental inheritance: 1) mixing which is detected also by changes in uniparental heritage, 2) random mutations and 3) genetic drift. Genetic drift is connected to locality and time. The way we can estimate it includes dating of the uniparental heritage. Without reliable datings it is like witch work, cooking magic soup.
It seems to be very little continuity between Ydna and autosomal in Finland. But several studies show that either maternal haplogroups in Finland can't be the reason for unexpected results, for contradicting results between uniparental and autosomal inheritances in Northern Europe ought to be other reasons. Studies prove that mitochondrial inheritance in Finland is partucarly southern and also western and only some specific and uncommon mitochondrial lines found mainly in Northern Finland imply northeastern origin.
My conclusion is that there is no reasonable conclusions that could explain what we see.