XPost: rec.travel.cruises, soc.culture.scottish, rec.travel.europe   
   XPost: rec.music.makers.bagpipe   
   From: micheil@shaw.ca   
      
   On 2 Nov 2006 09:05:05 -0800, "scally"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >allan connochie wrote:   
   >> "ALAN HARRISON"  wrote in message   
   >> news:CpqdnSn2nKygfdTYnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.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!   
   >>   
   >> Allin fact true but then again let's face it - if John Motson was to start   
   >> commentating on a Manchester United game by saying "It's a fine night here   
   >> in Manchester" then only the most pedantic would pull him up by saying "well   
   >> you aren't actually in the City of Manchester. You're in the Metropolitan   
   >> Borough of Trafford"  :-)   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Allan   
   >   
   >The problem with the Manchester district is its convoluted boundaries   
   >which, I presume, were drawn up by civil servants in London with a pen   
   >and an A to Z in the early seventies. Manchester city centre is on the   
   >outskirts of the City of Manchester and now is even spilling into   
   >Salford. The inner city areas lie in either Manchester, Salford or   
   >Trafford. The Manchester ship canal does not go to Manchester.   
   >Manchester City FC do not train in Manchester and the former Manchester   
   >docks were not in Manchester. The Happy Mondays, The Stone Roses, New   
   >Order and Morrisey are not from Manchester either. The postal districts   
   >are more representative of Manchester than administrative boundaries.   
      
   All I know about Manchester is from a Mancunian friend who keeps   
   chanting "What Manchester does today, London does tomorrow!"   
      
   The Highlander   
      
   Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns   
   an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.   
   The views expressed in this post are   
   not necessarily those of The Highlander.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)