"allan connochie" wrote in message
news:454b2547@news.greennet.net...
>
>> no, the "City of London" is a specific small area treated as one
>> borough of London (although it has slightly different rules).
>> border marker of the city:-
>
> Thanks. You are quite right, just as the City of Manchester is only one
> part
> of Greater Manchester.
But the analogy isn't exact.
The "City of London", with its bizarre and hardly democratic corporation and
its separate police force, is a very different entity from the City of
Manchester. A reference to Manchester (or Liverpool, or Birmingham) clearly
refers to the whole city, including, say, Ardwick and Gorton (or Edge Hill
and Anfield, or Small Heath and Handsworth). To include Salford, you would
need to refer to the "(greater) Manchester conurbation" or, if you like,
"greater Manchester" (lower case deliberate). What complicates issues is
that the names of the short-lived metropolitan counties are still used for
conurbations. Manchester is, I think, unique in that the city name was
incorporated in the metropolitan county name - Greater Manchester. This
doesn't apply to the other conurbations, where a "Worsle mon" like me might
bridle at being told I come from "greater Birmingham" but will acquiesce in
"West Midlands". (Similarly for Merseyside, etc.)
A reference to London doesn't normally mean the City of London but the whole
area covered by the London Assembly and Mayor. I won't go into how
"London-like" are places like Slough, Staines, or Saint Albans!
Alan Harrison
|