"Together" sort of stretches a point, but it was certainly better not having an expensive, self-serving and unpopular administrative body sticking their oar in. The current regimes allow for local agendas to be discussed and tackled more openly, whereas the failed system had issues with internal agendas and politics that limited and deterred investment.
No. You said "They came here because we have cheap labour and an empty dock," See my previous post on the multiple factors. Putin may well have been the tipping point.
I suspect that local political spats be they present or historic have little to do with the surge in renewables jobs. It's all about location. Grimsby has consciously tried to specialise in maintenance of the wind turbines, figuring that's a better long term strategy than making them. They have a nice little cluster of companies and ships who are already servicing the offshore turbines.
The Metropolitan County of Merseyside officially "exists", as does the Metropolitan County of Tyne and Wear. Tyneside doesn't. Wearside doesn't. So Humberside is really no different to those two. I'm afraid Reg is correct.
Not JUST the location, the back room discussions were a considerable factor, A large regional admin would have hindered the process.
As far as I can see, I've just returned to the original point, and missed out the bit that went off on a Siemens tangent. The debate was originally centred on the idea that Humberside doesn't exist any more so shouldn't be referred to. Then Merseyside, Tyneside and Wearside were thrown into the debate when two of those regions don't officially exist, either.
Humberside has existed since the 19th century, but was only an administrative council region from 1974 to its abolition. For some reason, this relatively straightforward distinction seems almost impossible to grasp. If a commentator or journalist, said "The match is of course being played in the county of Humberside" then I too might query the factual correctness. But of course the journalists and commentators don't mean/say that. Simple, really.
It's the 'officially' but that's confusing you. The other areas aren't really opposed to as names by the locals for the reasons mentioned, so like concepts such as the black country, they exist for a significant number.
Believe me, I'm trying You keep moving the goalposts. I give you links to thousands of examples of the use of Humberside before 1950 and you bury your head in the sand because it disproves your argument. So were there plans for a Humberside Airport in 1919? Who won the 'Humberside Derby' when City played GY in the same year? You may consult google.
This argument has flaws though, Dutch. For a start, not everyone dislikes the term Humberside and how de we even know that everyone likes Tyneside and Wearside in those regions? Perhaps more importantly though, and to echo what Reg said, the fact that some people (or even most people, if you want) don't like a name doesn't make it any less valid.
Here's another one:_ TYNESIDE AND HUMBERSIDE “... naturally arises, Why cannot the Humberside take up such an enterprise as a great Exhibition ? After careful enquiries, however, fear that the answer will be ... ” First match of your search in this article. Tuesday 16 July 1929 , Hull Daily Mail
You keep wriggling and trying to reinvent what I put. That tells me you're struggling here. You haven't put 1000's of examples at all, you've put the few that exist 1000's of times, just as you were caught doing last time. Piss poor arguments from you, all because you have a little man syndrome at being linked to the rest of Yorkshire.
