I read Ian R Mitchell’s article on Glasgow with interest (Want Glasgow to flourish? Let it grow, Essay of the week, July 19). Certainly, Glasgow’s boundaries are irrational. Peripheral areas benefit from services provided by the city and so, in a sense, are subsidised by Glasgow. The proposed solution isn't obvious, however. The metropolitan Glasgow Mr Mitchell suggests would contain about a fifth of Scotland’s population, perhaps more, depending on where the new boundaries are drawn. This would impose strains on other parts of Scotland.

Aberdeen’s boundaries are also irrational. The suburb of Westhill is outside the boundary, while, to the east, a large area of fields and forests is inside. Within 20 miles of Aberdeen are several towns, formerly real centres of their localities but increasingly, dormitory suburbs (Ellon, Inverurie, Banchory and Stonehaven for example). If there is a case for a metropolitan Glasgow, there is certainly a case for a metropolitan Aberdeen. There's probably a similar case for Edinburgh. I'd like to include Dundee but fear post-industrial decay has gone too far.

Three super-cities would have about a third of Scotland’s population. I think the other two-thirds would have real worries about such a situation.

Norman Miller

Logie Coldstone