Letter: If we can keep the United Kingdom intact it could be a beacon for the rest of the world

President Bush senior was dismissive of what he called ‘the vision thing’, but I think it does us good, occasionally, to imagine distant futures, even if they are scary.

Let us assume that the Northern Ireland Protocol is more or less satisfactorily resolved. That statement reminds me of the joke about the economist stranded on a desert island with sealed cans of food who said – ‘let us assume we have a can opener’.

However, I think it will be resolved and Stormont will get back to work on vital issues like health, eventually. What, then, of the medium term future of the United Kingdom?

Let us further assume that better leadership at Westminster reduces the lure of separatism over the next decade or so, a reasonable standpoint now that the Johnson and Truss carnivals are over. But, where does the UK go next, into the longer term and the far reaches of this century?

I half remember watching a TV programme in the 1980s. A commentator was sitting by an open fire in a cottage in Herefordshire. He said that it was difficult, safe in such a cosy place, to imagine the terrible cataclysmic dangers that lay ahead for humanity. I don't remember him talking specifically about global warming and the rise of China, our current concerns, but he was certainly worried about pollution, population growth and the Soviet Union.

Yesterdays view of the future is always incomplete, sometimes plain wrong. Many now believe, in this instance correctly I'm sure, that pollution will do a lot more than poison us, it will burn the planet and raise the seas, and cause a geopolitical and human catastrophe. Imagining the suffering of people and animals is unbearable.

We also know, however, that we have agency, and can be very clever when we try. Some countries will have to lead the way in dealing with the horrors of global warming and growing international conflict, finding a way through as best they can. Some countries will have to remain resilient and functional, providing technological, military and democratic political leadership for a collapsing world.

That's where the UK could come in, alongside about 20 like-minded states.

There's a body of research that suggests, perhaps surprisingly, that the UK could cope with climate change better than almost all other countries, although it would be a disaster for everyone. We have a high population density, but you need able networking people to create a critical mass for a full range of domestic supply chains, comprehensive innovation, and reconstruction.

Importantly, we are in the right part of the world, a kind of terrestrial goldilocks zone. It is extremely useful that we are not part of a continental land mass. We are economically and technologically advanced, and militarily remarkably strong. We speak English and have important allies. We have great universities and motivated people. When we mobilise ourselves we tend to be formidable. We are generous with our aid and outreach to others.

By the way, the Republic of Ireland also fares very well in these musings of futurologists, because of its agriculture, geography and education.

But, such a state, in an almost Mad Max-type world, is too small to defend itself. It would rely on a bigger neighbour for security. Now, who might that be, we ask ourselves ?

The UK's long term role could be an extraordinarily positive one in an increasingly terrifying world. The next ten years should tell us whether we will start to meet that potential, or fall short through our own failure or some unexpected twist of fate.

This is not fanciful stuff. Down in Herefordshire the cottages are still quaint and cosy, but terrible storm clouds are gathering. The UK could be a beacon for the world, if we can keep it intact in the short to medium term. But, nationalists and separatists want to revel in the simplicity of the nineteenth century, rather than address the complexity of the twenty-first.

John Gemmell, Wem, Shropshire