[T-A]

1) They want a new source of funding, ideally one they develop on their own (e.g. a mining and refining industry), to maintain their welfare state. It's a preference of theirs, not something imposed on them by the evil Danes.

Finding a new "buddy" to replace Denmark makes no sense. Why would they want to swap their dependence on a country which likes its welfare state (and is demonstrably good at administering it) for one which takes a notoriously dim view on such things?

2) Greenland becoming independent implies changing the borders of the kingdom of Denmark. That obviously requires a decision by parliament, no way around it.

Anyone interested in the facts can see the law in question here:

https://www.lovtidende.dk/api/pdf/125052

It would obviously not exist if Denmark was hellbent on denying Greenland its independence. All it does is lay out an orderly and straightforward process for the transition.

[rvnx]

Factually, I agree with you on both points. Like from the rule of law perspective.

Statistically you are right, but in practice I would be cautious. I'm betting on the fact that a mad world is going to be even more mad (I couldn't imagine US threatening to invade Denmark... though I understand the US opportunity as well).

10 years ago I would totally agree with you.

So let's see.