Can we please agree that a town/city with a history of its own and the various admistrative purposes such as registry offices, regional identity and such make them towns in their own right and not suburbs of the nearest big city. Too often people on here with no connections to that place, rather loftily decide that we should lose our local identity, and I include you in this
@Mojo. Yes it's your opinion, but as it is likely to cause offence, then don''t you think you should use a bit of sensitivity. After all, no one would insult Wales in context to size or relation to England, so for me there's no difference by saying Bolton/Salford are suburbs of Manchester . They aren't. And to say so is insulting. The town I come from is St Helens, and much as I actually love Liverpool, I would take great offence at anyone else trying to say my town is a suburb of Liverpool, it is not. It has its own history and it's priorities are not necessarily Liverpool's. I.E transport connections, sporting interests, dialect, and forms part of the rich difference of this country. Hence why you can walk 25 miles from the Liver Buildings and encounter at least 4 accents .I'm aware this is the largest area without a London link and for me it should be the town itself. Not the borough, which in Wigans case for instance would automatically wipe out a claim for Leigh being one of the biggest places without a station. Just by virtue of being I .Wigan Borough. I know Salford very well, and a couple ofy workmates from Salford would take a very dim view of being called a Manc. As such I think their claim for largest city without a link is a sound one .Just because it is side by side with Manchester makes it less of a place. The BBC and ITV always refer to their home as Salford and a bit of respect for these places is in order. Thank you.