...though preferably without using the now extinct term "short final"!

And certainly not "should" have said - no such obligation - as you say.

2 s

No. It's an uncontrolled airfield with an AFIS, who gives advice, but takes no responsibility for any collision. It would have been nice, if he tells you that you are #2 landing and you need to watch out for the aircraft that will vacate the runway before you, but maybe he was busy with something more important and trusted that you have eyes and know your own responsibility to go around in case of doubts.

In uncontrolled airfields, there can be a lot of congestions on the runways, and the main motivation for AFIS is to avoid accidents, because they are costly (think about cleaning the runway from debris, lots of paperwork, loss revenues due to RWY closure etc.). If it's only scary, it's OK. Some AFIS operators however, look out for students, especially soloing students, and clean the traffic from in front of them. The same with intructors in the air. So if you arrive to an unknown field, if you feel inexperienced - say so, and people will try to help. But as you correctly assumed, you are still in charge of your fate.

By the way have you seen this?

A Guide To Phraseology for General Aviation Pilots in Europe, section 7, Arrival

http://www.skolenipilotu.cz/skoleni-...gie-evropa.pdf

The term with uncontrolled fields is "free for landing".

If it's A/G then it doesn't even reach that low level..

Get hold of a copy of CAP 413, freely available by download from the CAA, (costs a fortune to buy a hard copy). My instructor was not "over the moon" with my RT procedure, but commented that it was greatly improved after digesting CAP 413. It is a wealth of information regarding who does what and what can be expected from various agencies.

I'm sure the OP has a lot to learn, which is why the OP is a student. That also applies to most of us IMHO.

I'd like to think that all those with a licence would appreciate the difference in service levels (although have a sneaky feeling that this is not the case).

Sounds to me like this is A/G and therefore only information given, not permission to land.

However, the OP has said that he was fully prepared to go around if the traffic in front hadn't vacated, and that to my mind is good airmanship. After all, even if we are dealing with 'Control' (meant in its correct sense), the landing clearance is just that, permission to land, not an instruction that must be obeyed.

The decision of whether to actually land is that of the PIC regardless of the service level given by the person on the other end of the radio.