This has led to problems but then again it's probably a damn sight safer and less crime ridden than most Ukian or Usian cities...
Disclaimer: I won't comment on the use of "USian" as the terminology gets a bit more complex there (usage of "American").
Terms like "UKian" are getting spread around K5 so quickly it is like militant political correctness.
As a Brit, I hate the phrase "UKian". If you want to cover all people resident in the UK, not just Brits/Britons (ie. citizens of the UK), you can just say "resident of the UK" or "UK resident" instead of UKian. I don't like doing this, as I mentioned above I find it just like political correctness, but I can tolerate it. I just use the phrase "British" to mean "all things in the UK" much as like I would say Swedish meaning "all things in Sweden", anything else is pointless baggage that serves to make things harder to read. Doing this, however, covers all complaints about not accepting cultural variety, which is the usual reply to people complaining about the usage of the word "UKian".
However, you do not refer to a place in the UK as being "UKian". The official nationality of people from the UK is "British". People from the component countries may not like this, but the fact remains (and is easily verified by taking a look at the words beside "Nationality" on the inside back page of their passport). Now, a city in the UK is not a citizen, a resident or anything like that. It is something that belongs to the UK. As the legal nationality of all things from the UK that belong to the UK is British, it becomes a British city, not a UKian city.
So, let's recap. A citizen of the UK is "British". A resident of the UK who is not British is "A resident of the UK" or "UK resident". Something that belongs to the UK is "British". There is no need at all for the word "UKian".
[ Parent ]