I heard in the news earlier that Dunfermline in Scotland has now become a city. Strangely, this is one of those quirky little issues that interests me: it throws up suite a few interesting questions, first and foremost what is the difference between a town and a city? If it’s a question of population, then where do you put the cut off point: one million? Two? Of course, it used to come down to whether or not a place had a cathedral, but that seems too outdated and religious to me. Instead I would like to suggest a new couple of possible definitions: firstly, it seems to me that any decent city would have an international airport, so perhaps that should be part of the definition of any modern city. Secondly, any decent liveable city these days has to have its own rail system, otherwise how can anyone get around? Then again, how large a network would a place need to justify calling itself a city? A hundred station? Two? And thirdly, how can anywhere claim to be a modern world city if it has not hosted the Olympic Games at least once? Then again, under that criterion,  somewhere like New York would have to be called a town, something which I think New Yorkers would have a problem with. However you frame it, then, the difference between a town and a city is a pretty arbitrary one, essentially boiling down to an issue of pride. The desire to be classified as a city is just a matter of a community’s collective ego. At the end of the day what matters most is that a place is comfortable and safe to live in, inhabited by people who get on with one another.