Re: Reasonable estimates of the size of Edinburgh and Glasgow?

On 30 Apr, 13:34, Michael Bell <mich...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <623bb844-2094-475f-a7ba-362026ba4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ups.com>
          The Real Doctor <ian.gro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On 30 Apr, 12:00, Michael Bell <mich...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <da9a5de3-a311-4c99-a80c-e29905a2e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ps.com>
          The Real Doctor <ian.gro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 30 Apr, 11:20, Michael Bell <mich...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Estimates for English conurbations are grouped together, so I can
reasonably add up a population for "Middlesbrough", but places are put
in alphabetical order in Scotland, so "Midlothian" is listed far from
"Edinburgh". Just taking the size of "Edinburgh" probably understates
the population of what we might reasonably call "Edinburgh". What
should be included? Likewise "Glasgow". What are reasonable figures?
Edinburgh is about four Middlesbroughs, Glasgow about six.
Ian

Please can I have actual figures, which I can defend?

Middlesbrough comes out at 0.56 million in my estimation. I can't
believe Glasgow has a population of 3 million.
If you cast your net widely enough to get over half a million people
in Middlesbrough - ie by including a vast amount of the surrounding
area, neighbouring towns and so on - then you have to do the same with
Glasgow.
Ian

That's exactly what I'm asking for. WHAT should be included?

Greenock, Gourock, Paisly and the rest of Renfrewshire. East Kilbride.
Cumbernauld. Airdrie, Coatbridge, Motherwell and the rest of
Lanarkshire. Clydebank.

Much of Glasgow was hived off into other local authority areas by the
Tories in a desperate attempt to gerrymander at least one conservative
council in Scotland. It failed, but it means that what is called
"Glasgow" nowadays is only about 2/3 of the area of what most people
would call Glasgow, without even considering the surrounding towns.

Ian
.

Relevant Pages