Talk:2008 Greenlandic self-government referendum

Self-government? Don't they already have that?

So, according to Enoksen's clarifications today they are going to have "selvstyre" (self-rule) and not "selvstændighed" (independence). But they already have "hjemmestyre" (home-rule) so I don't really understand what's going on. Some sort of increased independence, I suppose, but I don't know any details. Apparently this has caused some confusion in Greenland as well, since he felt compelled to clarify. Maybe this is totally clear in Greenlandic but I have no understanding of that language. Haukur (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange. Maybe it's just meant to gauge support before an actual independence referendum is attempted after the next elections? —Nightstallion 20:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they are looking at something similar to the Kingdom of Iceland? That would mean the establishment of a Kingdom of Greenland, in personal union with the Kingdom of Denmark, and where perhaps/probably part of defence and foreign affairs were handled by Copenhagen on behalf of Nuuk. This way they will remain part of "det danske rige". I'm not sure how much actual change it would mean, but it might be important symbolically. Opinions? -- Nidator ^{T / C} 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That could well be, but I'm not really in any position to verify it... ;) —Nightstallion 08:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've read some articles about this on http://sermitsiaq.gl and apparently no-one knows exactly what will happen since the committee (Selvstyrekommissionen) which is meant to propose the new self-government law hasn't done so yet. Enoksen has come under criticism for rushing things, he may be trying to force the committee's hand. The Democrats have suggested he made his move to strengthen his position in a power-struggle within his own party - I have no idea whether there's any truth to this. In any case, the plan is for the self-government to come into effect on June 21, 2009. In order for that to happen, Selvstyrekommissionen will actually have to come up with some law (!), it will have to be ratified in a referendum and it will have to be ratified by the Danish Folketing. So it's a fairly ambitious timetable.

As for the analogy with Iceland, I don't know. I think they already have a similar status as Iceland attained in 1904 (home-rule) and it doesn't look like they're going for a separate kingdom (Iceland in 1918). But it's definitely some sort of step towards greater autonomy. Haukur (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, they actually have some of this in English - try here: [1] Haukur (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And here's some really crunchy information in English: Report from the Commission on Self-governance March 2003 This treats all the possibilities, including the Kingdom of Iceland model. Haukur (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting. These possibilities should be added to the article in list form. If they are going to stay in "det danske rige" then I don't see why they would bother with all this unless they were going for something tangible like the Kingdom of Iceland model. Arranging a national conversation and a referendum simply for moving some competences from Copenhagen seems like over-kill. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 14:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if one of you could write up a paragraph about the options available and a paragraph about the proposed timing, that would be a great idea. Why that date, BTW? Is that the date for the next elections? —Nightstallion 15:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could too :) The English edition of Sermitsiaq seems to lag behind a day or so. Here's one of their recent English articles: [2] The date seems to be arbitrary, "just an idea from the prime minister" according to the Democrats. Also see this article: [3] Apparently the work of the self-rule commission stalled after the Danish parliamentary election and is being kicked into gear again. One of the major issues is the distribution of oil revenues. Haukur (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I can add the list and then you can improve on it afterwards. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 17:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

please. change the electoral calendar ïndependence referendum is not correct and it contradicts the title of this wikipage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.178.8 (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ittoqqortoormiit numbers are in

80% say yes in Ittoqqortoormiit, the first to report in. Haukur (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. If you find a link for nationwide results, we can get the result table filled in. – Zntrip 00:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried adding the early count,[4] but can't get the template to respond. kwami (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Numbers also available from http://sermitsiaq.gl/ The measure seems certain to pass in a landslide. Haukur (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure looks like it passed and it looks like the template is working. One thing that I don't think the article explains well is the the proposal. I don't seem to understand the proposal and I can't find it clearly spelled out in any source. – Zntrip 04:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added descriptions from the BBC. That's the best I've been able to find. kwami (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Amount of subsidies - Lack of clarity in article

According to this article, Danish subsidies account for two-thirds of Greenland's income and also for 30% of Greenland's income. These can't both be right! --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing. Please explain! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.80.224.69 (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is totally unclear. Also, the article states that "The first 75 million kroner (US$13.1 million) will go to Greenland, and the remaining revenue is split evenly with Denmark". The first 75 million of what? All the oil? That's not very generous. Annual oil revenue? Also not very generous, considering the vast oil fields that suspectedly rest outside Greenland.--80.203.45.87 (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the "30%" is 30% of the budget of the Greenlandic government, which would make the figures fit. Physchim62 (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

What was the actual question? Do you agree with the proposal? This is not clear (though it is somehow obvious) and the proposal paragraph is at the moment reflecting the reaction from Denmark. Somebody familiar with the topic please fix that. --Tone 19:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Change in Oil revenue distribution

I'm curious as to what the change is from. Zetetic Apparatchik (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It had been a 50-50 split up to 500 x of revenue (I forget what the x was—millions of krona, maybe?), and undetermined after that. It will now be 100% to Greenland for the first 35 x, and 50-50 for anything above that. The net effect is 17.5 x more revenue to Greenland, and no need to worry about what happens if revenue increase beyond what the previous agreement covered. kwami (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Never Back Down

Commission on Self-governance outlined six possibilities for the future of Greenland.[4] These were:

Independence Union with another country, like Canada or the USA, similar to the former Kingdom of Iceland (1918 – 1944) Free Association, similar to the relationship between Palau and the United States Federation Increased self-government for Greenland, beyond what is guaranteed today by the Home Rule. Complete integration --74.237.54.62 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The commission's report's suggestion of a union with another country is a personal union so clearly neither Canada nor USA. 77.215.191.91 (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What other courty would they unite with? they are already apart of Denmark, besides whats to say they wouldnt be in a personal union with Canada or the USA?--74.237.54.62 (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Independence Union with another country, otherwise know as a Personal Union with Denmark, similar to the former Kingdom of Iceland (1918 – 1944) Free Association, similar to the relationship between Palau and the United States, or the United Kingdom to it's Dominons such as Canada and Australia at the beginning of the 20th centuray. Federation Increased self-government for Greenland, beyond what is guaranteed today by the Home Rule. Complete integration --74.237.54.62 (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

United Nations ?

Does this make Greenland eligible for representation in the United Nations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.112.70 (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, since they are not an independent nation yet.--Orakologen (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"Greenlanders are also recognized as a separate group of people under international law"

What exactly does this mean? Are there any other areas like this that are recognized as separate under international law? CK6569 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is a reference to the Helsinki Accords part VIII, equal rights and self-determination of peoples, meaning that it guarantees Greenland's right to self-determination and in such a way that if negotiations between Denmark and Greenland break down Greenland can ask the United Nations to act as a third party at the negotiations. The negotiations between Denmark and the Faroe Islands circa 2000-2002 is an example of just when this type of recognition would have made a difference (as a rough, brief summary, UN stayed out of because Denmark hadn't recognized the Faroese as a separate people making the Faroese self-determination a question of internal relations within the kingdom). If you're interested in what recognition as a people means from a Greenlandic and Faroese perspective, I think The Right To National Self-Determination - The Faroe Islands and Greenland (2004) may have something relevant. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer for your question regarding other areas. Hemmingsen 06:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greenlandic self-government referendum, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20070620134508/http://www.nanoq.gl/Nyheder/2008_Nyt%C3%A5rstale.aspx to http://www.nanoq.gl/Nyheder/2008_Nyt%C3%A5rstale.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nanoq.gl/upload/selvstyrekomm/tuluttooq_final.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627173752/http://news.trend.az/index.shtml?show=news&newsid=1352883&lang=EN to http://news.trend.az/index.shtml?show=news&newsid=1352883&lang=EN

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)