Talk:Avon (county)

Back to Somerset

I'd be interested to see evidence of any campaign to restore Somerset to its old boundaries. My parents live in North Somerset, and although I'm aware of grumbling about the new council (the "back to Somerset" lot were overjoyed at first until they realised that what they were actually getting was an independent Woodspring), restoration of the original county boundaries isn't a serious proposition as far as I can tell. --Andrew Norman 23:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, we don't want restoration of the original boundaries, as they're still there! What we want is more recognition that the county boundaries are independent of local government changes. Owain 08:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's not what the article says, though - see the last paragraph. I grew up in the area during the time when Avon was created, so I know all the various campaigns and attitudes of the time (one of the more implausible claims was that Taunton was a better shopping town than Bristol, and "closer" to Clevedon because of the motorway). A lot of it had to do with Tory areas not wanting to be tainted by "socialist" Bristol, and that's less clear-cut now. The small unitary authorities are often inefficient and have occasionally had the whiff of dodgy politics, but I think most people who look at it objectively would say that administratively, it's either that, or a restored "Greater Bristol", i.e. Avon. The argument about ceremonial county boundaries is (as far as I can tell) dead and buried now, as Avon's Lord Lieutenant is no more. --Andrew Norman 08:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs rewording in that area, I agree. There is more to identity than ceremonial county boundaries though. There are all sorts of different bodies that use a multitude of different names — Avon is still an official postal county and although the Royal Mail has officially stopped using them, they still crop up on products based on their PAF data. There are bodies such as Avon fire brigade, &c that still use the name. In the case of Lord Lieutenants, sanity has prevailed in this instance, but there are still Lord Lieutenants of "Merseyside", "Tyne & Wear" &c that re-inforce those artificial creations. A universal acceptance of traditional counties as the standard geographic framework would solve most of these identity problems. Owain 10:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've removed that paragraph. Wikipedia standards being that if you say "some people say X", you have to say who is saying X and give a reference, I can't see any justification for it being there. The whole "ceremonial county" thing leaves me cold, it has no effect on the way people actually live their lives, and although I'm in a minority I think Avon should have stayed (the people who were grumbling in 1980 that Avon was far too Bristol-centric are now moaning that North Somerset council spends too much on Weston-Super-Mare). --Andrew Norman 12:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heh! Well the whole rationale for changing local government in 1974 was for efficiency. I've got no problems with Avon existing as a local government area, so long as people disassociate local government areas with county boundaries. If map makers and the media &c hadn't made everyone think that their counties were being changed then there wouldn't have been so much hostility. Even the title of this article implies that county boundaries and names have been changed, when of course, they haven't! Owain 12:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Avon was a prime example of the confusion brought by chopping and changing for petty administrative reasons. If the USA followed the same "logic" they would merge the smaller states and/or divide the larger ones and transfer various cities between states. Eg California and Texas may be divided up and the small states of New England merged together. Indeed if one were to divide England up again from scratch by such trivial criteria as which were better shopping towns or what cities were closer it would no doubt result in a totally different division. Booshank (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tale of two Kingswoods

Can editors of this article please note that Kingswood, Gloucestershire and Kingswood, South Gloucestershire are separate places, and have rather different sizes - but I have friends I'd like to keep in both places :-) Linuxlad 10:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gloucestershire - the bits which did, or didn't, get away

Active antipathy to being included in Avon was not confined to Somerset of course. It's my understanding that, originally the whole of Thornbury RDC was due to go in to Avon, but that the area around Berkeley (including the castle and the estate lands) was excluded, after well-organised lobbying.

_It is said_ that the Beaufort estate around Badminton also wished to stay in Gloucestershire, but were hampered by the fact that the next parish north was happy to be transferred. Linuxlad

That being said, all these places *remained in Gloucestershire* after 1974, but they were administered by Avon. How's that for pedantry? :) Owain 08:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Demise - a plea

Lets not overstate the case against Avon. Many of us recognised it as an eminently sensible creation, and since its demise there have, arguably, been significant problems with strategic planning over the old 'Avon' area. Much of the case against it was carefully crafted from one side of the political spectrum, using a local paper to fuel Little Bristolism in people who should have known better. People in say Filton and Patchway North arguably only benefitted from Avon's creation in terms of council services.Linuxlad 11:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for creation

Hampton, W. Local Goverment and Urban Politics (1991) notes that Avon and Humberside were created (partly) because of expected increases in populations which did not happen. MRSC 14:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Later :-) Well whilst that is famously true of the Humber bridge, I doubt it really applies to Avon - Yate, Thornbury and Bradley Stoke in the North Bristol Fringe all increased significantly in size, which is why the parliamentary boundary has systematically been shifting north. Linuxlad (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My recollection from the time was the claim it was created for political reasons - adding enough Tory areas to turn Labour Bristol into a Tory county! I think that was widely believed, but don't know if it was a truthful view! Didn't really work anyway. Rwendland (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

True - this may shed some light on the politics of it all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can anybody add the correct pronunciation? Is it the beginning as in "aim"/"April" or as in "ampersand"/"ask"? User:Sobreira —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.64.252 (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Long "a" as in "April" - although ultimately it derives from the Welsh "afan" ("river"), which has a short "a". Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The article gives both at the moment. However, I'd always understood it to be /ˈeɪvɒn/, not with a schwa as given. -- Smjg (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The correct pronunciation is always with the long A, so I've removed the incorrect version. This is despite the fact that the river name ultimately derives from the Welsh word which is now pronounced with a short A. (I used to work for Avon CC, btw.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Avon (county). 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://web.archive.org/web/20080605142243/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/si/si1996/Uksi_19960043_en_4.htm to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19960043_en_4.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gbsts.com/study_area.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120907195225/http://viewfinder.english-heritage.org.uk/search/results.aspx?index=0 to http://viewfinder.english-heritage.org.uk/search/results.aspx?index=0&mainQuery=&searchType=all&form=basic&theme=&county=AVON&district=&placeName=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avon (county). 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://web.archive.org/web/20110604194829/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1995-02-22/Debate-14.html to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1995-02-22/Debate-14.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)