By Mark E. Saunders of “The Scottish Minuteman” https://www.facebook.com/profile.php/?id=61575625542197

According to 11 Downing Street, when it comes to Greenland, democracy is simple — the future of Greenland should be decided by the people of Greenland. It should not be determined by Donald Trump. Not by any occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Not by Washington. Not by whoever happens to have the biggest economy, the biggest military, or the loudest voice in the room.

And most people would probably agree.

After all, a nation, or a people, should have the right to determine their own future. It seems a pretty straightforward democratic principle, doesn’t it?

Which brings us to Scotland.

Surely what is good for the polar bear is just as good for the unicorn? But it would seem not. For somewhere between the frozen landscapes of Greenland and the glens and lochs of Scotland, democracy appears to change its mind.

Rachel Reeves was right when she said Greenland’s future was not for Donald Trump to decide. The polar bear should have a say in what happens to its own home.

But what about the unicorn?

Because when Scotland asks a similar question about its own future, suddenly democratic principles become much more complicated.

Andy Burnham, widely tipped as a future Prime Minister — and therefore Ms Reeves’ potential boss — has already made clear his opposition to another Scottish independence referendum. And like many in Westminster, his argument is that Scotland’s constitutional future is not simply a matter for the Scottish people, but ultimately a matter for Westminster and whoever occupies Number 10 Downing Street this year or next.

So the strange and inconsistent geography of self-determinism rears its ugly head — if the occupant of 11 Downing Street agrees that the people of Greenland should decide Greenland’s future, then why shouldn’t the occupant of 10 Downing Steert agree to the people of Scotland deciding Scotland’s?

Reeves and Burnham know only too well that Donald Trump cannot simply claim Greenland because he wants it. And rightly so. A country is not a piece of property to be permanently lorded over by another, more powerful nation.

If self-determination is a democratic principle, it cannot depend on geography. It cannot apply in the Arctic but disappear somewhere between Edinburgh and London.

The democratic future of a country is not a privilege handed down by those who hold power. It is the right of the people who live there.