Hacker News Reader

I live in Scotland, where the entire country has less people than Dallas/Fort-Worth - and even here 1k people isn't a 'small town', it's a village.

The town I grew up in had a population of ~35k, and it was definitely a 'small town'.

These things are all relative to your local norms, but I think demanding that 'small towns' have at most four people and a lame horse is excessive.

View on HN

It has an urban population of 96,900 that is fairly large by Scottish Standards. Inverness and Stirling have ~70,000 each and they are cities.

In Europe (at least continental), there is a clear distinction between "village" and "town", because historically, "town" was a legal status granted by the king or church (city would be perhaps the town where the archbishop would have his seat), but it wasn't necessarily distinguished so much by its size, they'd be all very small.

Personally, I'd but the line between "town" and "city" to having some kind of rapid rail transit. (That'd mean, for example, that in the country where I live is just one city.)

Yes, but it's not in Scotland.

My point was that the size of a 'small town' varies by context, and that a town of 1,000 would be tiny even in the context of a place that doesn't have many people.

Also, 'city' in the UK is to do with a special government/crown-granted status, not really the population per se.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com