If they did, depending upon what that encompasses, then either large swathes of Scotland would be included (Glasgow is a Brythonic name!), or you'd be excluding England from the discussion.

Largely without fail, someone talking about Britain is talking of the island itself, or the current inhabitants.

Of course, they might _technically_ be British from a legal or official standpoint, which I'm sure Gordonjcp is aware of and accepts. It's entirely possible to be both British and not-British simultaneously in different contexts. This sort of thing isn't black and white.

Absolutely, but it would be nice if people expressed their wishes in logical terms. "I prefer to describe that dog as a terrier" is logically sound, "that is a terrier, not a dog" is not. The latter tries to arbitrarily redefine what a dog is.

It's a bit like "Charlie's not a dog, he's my best friend"

Shorthands are fine, but this is not it. This is some weird agenda to deny the logical truth.

I'd argue that one can be damaging and we should call people out on it.

Dogs are dogs and they need to be treated like dogs. The infantilization of dogs is how you get unleashed dogs getting into dog fights when it turns out that Charlie really just is another dog and should have been leashed.

Yay for Brexit.