XPost: rec.travel.cruises, soc.culture.scottish, rec.travel.europe   
   XPost: rec.music.makers.bagpipe   
   From: alantharrison@btopenworld.com   
      
   "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   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)