8 ms·

I don’t think the wishes of the population are being taken into account. Maybe they should hold a vote?

graemep 10mo ago
The government of Greenland has a right to call an independence referendum so it could happen depending on who wins elections.
- yorwba 10mo ago
  There was an election in 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Greenlandic_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Greenlandic_general_elect... Pro-independence parties won a supermajority. The only party whose leader said that he trusts Trump in the debate before the election got 305 votes and no seats. The next parliamentary elections are scheduled for 2029, too late for a pro-Trump swing unless he manages to stay in office somehow.
  - graemep 10mo ago
    Independence is what the US wants to stop as it carries a risk of changes such as not joining NATO and EU, rethinking US bases.
- nephihaha 10mo ago
  So did Catalonia and Scotland, but neither of those were conducted properly. In both cases, a full array of state apparatus was brought into play.
  - graemep 10mo ago
    In the case of Scotland the state resources (those of the Scottish govt) were promoting the leave side. Both of those have very different histories and circumstances Greenland was a colony and in thr current (or at least very recent) treatment of indigenous people.
    - nephihaha 10mo ago
      They certainly were not. The full force of British institutions was ranged against Scottish independence, including the civil service, BBC and even certain businesses like Baxters or Tesco. Scotland forgets its past. Most people don't know that most of Scotland including non-Jacobite areas was garrisoned in the late 1740s. Or that there was an uprising in 1820. Or famines and rioting around the Moray Firth in the 1840s so bad that the army was brought in. Most of that is forgotten. "Indigenous" is code for tribal. Scotland was partly tribal into the Middle Ages but is never classed as such. Why the difference?
cmrdporcupine 10mo ago
One of the tricky situations now is that full independence for Greenland now would leave it weak to more aggressive imperialist predation from the USA. Not that Denmark (or even the EU) is capable of militarily defending it now. But politically it carries more clout than a tiny population in its own state. I think the situation of Quebec here in Canada does show it's possible for regions/provinces to become somewhat more sovereign in their own land without full legal independence. Even if that has been fraught with all sorts of ridiculous conflict.

The government of Greenland has a right to call an independence referendum so it could happen depending on who wins elections.

yorwba 10mo ago
There was an election in 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Greenlandic_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Greenlandic_general_elect... Pro-independence parties won a supermajority. The only party whose leader said that he trusts Trump in the debate before the election got 305 votes and no seats. The next parliamentary elections are scheduled for 2029, too late for a pro-Trump swing unless he manages to stay in office somehow.
- graemep 10mo ago
  Independence is what the US wants to stop as it carries a risk of changes such as not joining NATO and EU, rethinking US bases.
nephihaha 10mo ago
So did Catalonia and Scotland, but neither of those were conducted properly. In both cases, a full array of state apparatus was brought into play.
- graemep 10mo ago
  In the case of Scotland the state resources (those of the Scottish govt) were promoting the leave side. Both of those have very different histories and circumstances Greenland was a colony and in thr current (or at least very recent) treatment of indigenous people.
  - nephihaha 10mo ago
    They certainly were not. The full force of British institutions was ranged against Scottish independence, including the civil service, BBC and even certain businesses like Baxters or Tesco. Scotland forgets its past. Most people don't know that most of Scotland including non-Jacobite areas was garrisoned in the late 1740s. Or that there was an uprising in 1820. Or famines and rioting around the Moray Firth in the 1840s so bad that the army was brought in. Most of that is forgotten. "Indigenous" is code for tribal. Scotland was partly tribal into the Middle Ages but is never classed as such. Why the difference?

cmrdporcupine 10mo ago

One of the tricky situations now is that full independence for Greenland now would leave it weak to more aggressive imperialist predation from the USA. Not that Denmark (or even the EU) is capable of militarily defending it now. But politically it carries more clout than a tiny population in its own state. I think the situation of Quebec here in Canada does show it's possible for regions/provinces to become somewhat more sovereign in their own land without full legal independence. Even if that has been fraught with all sorts of ridiculous conflict.