THREE guesses as to the likely alternative name in the minds of the management of Bolton Institute.

It must be made abundantly clear to them, and to the Privy Council, that any title which contains the word "Manchester" is unacceptable.

Yet Bolton Council cannot be let off the hook. Until it withdraws from AGMA, (Association of Greater Manchester Authorities) the voluntary remnant of the defunct GMC, in favour of a broader alliance, we shall continue to have our identity and influence eroded.

In the meantime, let it block any development of AGMA's competences. Let me predict now that the next battle will be to prevent our local NHS bodies disappearing into an enhanced Greater Manchester health authority.

When "Greater Manchester" was created in the 1970s, it caused uproar, because we already had firmly-established identities at both local and regional level. Tremendous loyalties persist, 30 years later.

That there is clearly an urban belt stretching across South Lancashire from Oldham to Liverpool has always been acknowledged. It is however a simplistic fiction to divide it along the M6 and pretend that the eastern half is merely a Manchester "city region". To describe it thus is to deny historical fact: the belt grew up around a number of centres, and Manchester shared its prominence with Liverpool. Urban Lancashire is not commuter-belt Cheshire: there was never a time when, prior to "moving out", we had all shopped in Manchester, or spoken with Manchester accents, or thought of ourselves as Mancunians.

Does it matter? Of course it does, and for two reasons.

Firstly, community identities can be eroded and lost, but they are much harder to re-create. We should surely have learnt that lesson from the 1960s. Bolton's strong sense of itself is surely an asset to be cherished. In terms of social cohesion, it is priceless.

Secondly, the Manchester identity does not in fact bring us any material benefits -- and is unlikely to do so in the future. This is not to denigrate Manchester's regional role, but merely to recognise the wider context in which Bolton's future must be set. Manchester City Council's vicious parochialism in recent years (it is quite clear what they mean by "Manchester" when it comes to sharing out the benefits!)coupled with the traditional developmental bias to suburban Cheshire, would mean for Bolton, not prosperity as Mancunian suburbia, but a struggle to stay off the post-industrial scrapheap through low-grade industrial and retail developments. It is not just that we don't want "Greater Manchester" -- we can't afford it.

Wigan has far more in common with St Helens than it does with Altrincham; it is not at all clear that Bolton is more Manchester-oriented than, say ,Warrington. The 1974 county, and its objectionable name, are a distortion.

A V Bowyer

Fallowfield Way

Atherton

THREE guesses as to the likely alternative name in the minds of the management of Bolton Institute. It must be made abundantly clear to them, and to the Privy Council, that any title which contains the word "Manchester" is unacceptable.

Yet Bolton Council cannot be let off the hook. Until it withdraws from AGMA, the voluntary remnant of the defunct GMC, in favour of a broader alliance, we shall continue to have our identity and influence eroded. In the meantime, let it block any development of AGMA's competences. Let me predict now that the next battle will be to prevent our local NHS bodies disappearing into an enhanced Greater Manchester health authority.

When "Greater Manchester" was created in the 1970s, it caused uproar, because we already had firmly-established identities at both local and regional level. Tremendous loyalties persist, thirty years later. That there is clearly an urban belt stretching across South Lancashire from Oldham to Liverpool has always been acknowledged. It is however a simplistic fiction to divide it along the M6 and pretend that the eastern half is merely a Manchester "city region". To describe it thus is to deny historical fact: the belt grew up around a number of centres, and Manchester shared its prominence with Liverpool. Urban Lancashire is not commuter-belt Cheshire: there was never a time when, prior to "moving out", we had all shopped in Manchester, or spoken with Manchester accents, or thought of ourselves as Mancunians. Wigan has far more in common with St Helens than it does with Altrincham; it is not at all clear that Bolton is more Manchester-oriented than, say ,Warrington. The 1974 county, and its objectionable name, are a distortion.

Does it matter? Of course it does, and for two reasons. Firstly, community identities can be eroded and lost, but they are much harder to re-create. We should surely have learnt that lesson from the 1960s. We may be no Bath or Cambridge, but Bolton's strong sense of itself is surely an asset to be cherished. In terms of social cohesion, it is priceless.

Secondly, the Manchester identity does not in fact bring us any material benefits - and is unlikely to do so in the future. This is not to denigrate Manchester's regional role, but merely to recognise the wider context in which Bolton's future must be set. Manchester City Council's vicious parochialism in recent years (it is quite clear what they mean by "Manchester" when it comes to sharing out the benefits!)coupled with the traditional developmental bias to suburban Cheshire, would mean for Bolton, not prosperity as Mancunian suburbia, but a struggle to stay off the post-industrial scrapheap through low-grade industrial and retail developments. It is not just that we don't want "Greater Manchester" - we can't afford it.