The decision to excise the term has been described by critics as "risible" and "pettyminded", but for this columnist, the two words 'British Isles' . . . often used as a shorthand, even in this country, for Ireland and Great Britain . . . has always been the verbal equivalent of nails down a blackboard. Perhaps that it is down to pettiness on my part, or maybe, just maybe, it is because Ireland is actually not part of the so-called British Isles, a madeup name from a colonial past that has no legal standing.

The common argument that 'British Isles' is a "geographical term" is a total red herring, as if geographical terms are somehow God-given and unalterable. It is often said that history is written by the victors, but the same undoubtedly holds true for geographical terms. It would be naive in the extreme to believe that the usage of the name Britain for the islands of the archipelago was not influenced by the largest island's political, cultural and economic dominance. To put it simply, the term 'British Isles' was simply a reflection of England's de-facto rule of all the islands in the archipelago.

Yet since 1922, that clearly has no longer been the case.

While it would be wrong to ignore that many people in Northern Ireland regard themselves as British . . . as is their right . . . the Republic of Ireland is manifestly not British.

Therefore the island of Ireland cannot be regarded as British, so the continuation of the term the British Isles is clearly well out-of-date.

Despite what some have argued, there is nothing anti-British about not wanting to be described as living in the British Isles. One letter-writer to a newspaper last week claimed that nationalists may wish that Ireland existed alone in isolation in North Atlantic, but the fact is that it does not. But opposition to the use of the term 'British Isles' does not equate to wanting to live in splendid isolation. Our links with Britain . . . cultural, economic and social . . .

are far too large to ignore and nor should anyone want to. Yes, of course, there is 800 years of historical baggage to contend with but, post-Good Friday Agreement, it is preferable to look forward rather than back.

We have more in common with British people than any other nation on the planet and it is right and desirable that they should be our closest friends and allies.

Some of us marry British people; many of us have lived in Britain; we support British football teams; we laugh at British comedians; we shop in British stores here; we love listening to British pop music; we admire the BBC and the tolerance and diversity in British society. But you can admire and like Britain as friends and equals, while wishing to be independent of it. There is no contradiction, for example, between wanting England to do well in the World Cup and not wanting to be described as living in the British Isles.

Nobody would argue that it is 'petty' or 'risible' that a married woman might want to maintain her own name. So why is not wanting to be described as living in the 'British Isles' associated with anti-Britishness?

The fact that the sea between our two islands is known as the Irish Sea is put forward by some as somehow balancing out Ireland's inclusion in the British Isles, but do we really think that British people would be happy if the archipelago was referred to as the Irish Isles, but they could gain solace by crossing the British Sea? Of course, they would find the use of the term Irish Isles irritating and so they should. The question as to how South Americans and Canadians feel about the population of the United States being referred to as Americans has also been highlighted by those advocating keeping the British Isles term. But just because other countries have to accept the irritation of their continent's name being associated with just one country is hardly a reason for Ireland to endure being included in the British Isles.

And, unlike with the American example, the British Isles term does cause genuine confusion about Ireland's status. Mikhail Gorbachev, during his time as leader of the USSR, once indicated that he presumed Ireland's head of state was Queen Elizabeth, given that she was the British Queen and his officials said that Ireland was a part of the British Isles. Any independent state would have to be concerned that the second most powerful man in the world, which he was at the time, had such a serious misunderstanding of its sovereignty . . . based exclusively on an out-dated, colonial term.

Fifteen years on, the USSR has been wiped off the map, it's long overdue that the term 'British Isles' got the same treatment.