Just a comment from an (occasional) user of counties, agreeing with the notion
that the current situation is a bit of a mess.
I have to index an archaeological journal. When putting place-names in I
usually add the "county". I always use the historic/traditional counties.
The simplest reason is that they are still very familiar to people.
A second, quite important reason is this. If you try to go with the latest
administrative divisions (post 1974/1975) you're on quicksand -- they keep
changing. A good example in my area is the county of Cleveland. It didn't
exist before 1974, and it's been totally abolished a few years since (although
the police still use it). Who will have a clear idea where it was in 20-30
years' time? Avon & Humberside are similar examples. North of the Humber
they were never reconciled to "Humberside", and will probably expunge it from
their memories double quick. In Wales, the counties, and, in Scotland, the
Regions (replacing the counties) have now gone altogether. (It looks as
though this is the long-term aim for England, too.)
I won't go on: my basic point is that a lot of people have a good use for a
set of area-names (counties) which are (1) familiar and (2) *** stable ***.
Roger Fern.
********************
Roger Fern
Failed Librarian
Newcastle upon Tyne
********************
|