Yes that is what he said but I stand by what I said -- i.e., the United Kingdom, as in the sovereign state in which the Open is held. This "Great Britain" reference, seeing as it is to a physical geography, I say is bogus: the R&A operate inside a political geography, not a physical geography.
I don't mind the Open aligning to physical geography for purposes of defining a style of play; i.e., linksland. But as a political body and administrator of the championship the R&A aligns with the political geography. It defines its jurisdiction over golfers according to political geography. Its jurisdiction extends to the game of golf as played in sovereign nations. It should administer its championships accordingly to a political geography.
The R&A doesn't say it carries jurisdiction over "large bodies of land" or "properties both hilly and flat." Yet this reference to "as played in Great Britain" is akin to that; it's like the USGA saying "The National Open as played in the middle third of North America."
They've added this qualifier ("as played in Great Britain") to a title ("Open Championship") whose primary reference is political; i.e., championship of the United Kingdom. I know, I know -- "championship of the world" business and all that notwithstanding.
I say they're using the term to reframe the debate to their own more favorable terms. I say they use the political geography; they shouldn't be allowed to concoct a term to rationalize their decision. They shouldn't be allowed to hide their NIR decision behind this fabrication.
If they're going to go with this helpfully-descriptive physical geography nomenclature, they should at least get it correct: "The Linksland Championship of Great Britain."
Apologies for the rant. I know this is a subtle point, but my reaction upon reading that article was anything but!
Mark