> population of the UK would vote against Scotland leaving

The UK literally let Scotland vote on it [1]. On the other end of the spectrum, Greenland is a proposed military invasion and unilateral annexation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Independence_Referend...

▲

ericmay 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The UK government let Scotland vote, it didn't allow the entire nation of the United Kingdom to vote on it. And they allowed it because they know it will fail and the smart thing to do if your aim is to keep the UK together (much to Russia's dismay of course) would be to let these referendums proceed when you know they don't have the votes and then they'll sort of fizzle out over time. You did support Brexit though, right? I mean they voted on it after all.

> Greenland is a proposed military invasion and unilateral annexation.

I don't think that is/was the only option on the table nor do I think it was a serious threat albeit it did have the intended effect which was to help scare the EU straight on spending a lot more on defense in Greenland.

But let's say the US pulls together some package deal for Greenland, say, hey everyone who lives in Greenland if they vote yes to join the United Stats they get a million dollars and American citizenship (it could be something else, just a random example) and if they do so of course Denmark and the EU would be against it, but why? It's morally no different than dangling EU membership and billions of Euros in eventual aid to Scotland if it were to leave the UK.

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> UK government let Scotland vote, it didn't allow the entire nation of the United Kingdom to vote on it

The UK government represents the UK. Everything doesn’t need to be a referendum.

> they allowed it because they know it will fail

Irrelevant. They allowed it. If the EU agreed to Switzerland voting on Schengen per se, then it would be comparable.

> don't think that is/was the only option on the table

But it was on the table. That makes it distinct from the other examples.

Again, I think you’re muddying very different situations in a way that undermines your own arguments.

▲

ericmay 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> The UK government represents the UK. Everything doesn’t need to be a referendum.

> Irrelevant. They allowed it.

Respectfully I just don't agree with your framing here. Another wrinkle could be Northern Ireland if we want to go into this further with the UK specifically.

> But it was on the table. That makes it distinct from the other examples.

It was on the table but it seems that it was on the table as a bargaining chip for a different aim which was to scare the EU straight on spending the money necessary to secure Greenland and these arctic routes. While I agree that the situation itself is distinct, that's true of basically all separatists movements, whether that's Scotland, Taiwan, or Catalonia.

Setting aside American "threats", we can look at tools the United States could use, similar to tools the EU can use with respect to Scotland, to achieve a popular vote in favor of secession that would be detrimental to the organizing entity (UK/Denmark). At what point is such a thing hostile, and at what point is it simply a population exercising what we consider to be a fundamental right? Is Spain being undemocratic by not even permitting Catalonia a vote on independence?

How do you feel about the separatists movement in Alberta? Would you fully support that as well if they decide on a referendum in Alberta to leave Canada? What about Quebec? Genuinely curious.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> How do you feel about the separatists movement in Alberta? I’d say they have nothing to do with a Swiss immigration vote.