Why Alex Salmond doesn’t really want a yes vote in Scotland

There’s been something approaching a meltdown among politicians in London in recent days. For months now, the referendum on Scottish independence has been something in the far distance that was nothing to worry about.

Yet suddenly the prospect of independence is approaching like a speeding truck, and at the wheel is Alex Salmond, the ebullient leader of the Scottish National Party. Horn blaring, headlights dazzling, his jowly features etched with his trademark blend of menace and triumph. The message is simple: get out of our way, for we're coming through. From out of nowhere the UK might not only be shunted off the road, but plunged into the abyss.

The realisation that Scotland might actually vote for self-rule has caught Westminster utterly flat-footed. Such has been the quiet confidence of the Better Together campaign that prime minister David Cameron and opposition leader Ed Miliband have only been noticeable by their absence from the campaign trail.

All that has suddenly changed. Perhaps too late, they’ve realised that a “yes” vote is now a very real possibility. A clutch of opinion polls last week suggested that far from lagging behind as they have throughout the campaign, the pro-independence camp is now inching ahead. The consequence has been something approaching blind panic.

So what on earth will happen if Mr Salmond prevails? Speculation on his country’s future has ranged from the profound to the fanciful. Will the Union Jack have to be stripped of its colourful Scottish components? Is Hadrian’s Wall to be rebuilt? And what of Sir Chris Hoy, the UK’s (or is it Scotland’s) most prodigious Olympian athlete? Should he hand back his medals?

The “no” camp, led by former chancellor Alistair Darling, and now buttressed by any politician fit enough to hobble to a microphone, has responded by venturing various economic Doomsday scenarios for the Scots in an attempt to scare the living daylights out of those who would go it alone.

Unsophisticated this response may be, but it’s having the desired effect, with a recent poll indicating the pro-union campaign is inching back in front. As one Scottish citizen put it this week on the BBC: “I’ve already voted ‘Yes’ via my postal vote, but now I’m wondering if I’ve made the wrong decision.” With many voters still undecided, the future of Scotland hangs in the balance.

Yet all may not be as it seems. One seasoned politico I spoke to earlier this week explained his utterly persuasive theory about what was really going on beneath the claims and counter-claims being traded across the airwaves.

“Alex Salmond doesn’t want a ‘yes’ vote”, he suggested.

“What he wants is a ‘no’ vote but with all the political and economic concessions offered by Westminster by way of compensation.

“Look at it from his point of view. No pesky economy to worry about, no worries about the exodus of big business from Edinburgh and Glasgow back to London and best of all, no worries about the demise of North Sea oil supplies, which at current estimates are expected to run out by 2025 – and on which a successful Scottish economy would heavily depend.

“Instead, all the financial and legislative backing of Westminster will still be on tap and his own position as first minister of Scotland will be supremely enhanced.”

Perhaps these are the musings of a gnarled old hack who’s read too many conspiracy theories. But one thing is certain – whatever the result on Thursday, Mr Salmond will be far more powerful than even he could ever have envisaged a few years ago.

And what of Mr Cameron? Here my friend’s diagnosis, which was even more startling.

Mr Cameron, he points out, calamitously offered the referendum when he was not even legally obliged to do so.

If Scotland indeed votes “yes”, there are many who will consider his premiership fatally injured. With George Osborne waiting in the wings and an invigorated Boris Johnson already shouldering his way back into parliament, no wonder the PM’s looking more than a little panic-stricken just now.

“May you live in interesting times”, runs an ancient Chinese curse. If so, the UK can consider itself truly blessed.

Michael Simkins is an actor and writer based in London

On Twitter: @michael_simkins

Mercer, the investment consulting arm of US services company Marsh & McLennan, expects its wealth division to at least double its assets under management (AUM) in the Middle East as wealth in the region continues to grow despite economic headwinds, a company official said.

Mercer Wealth, which globally has $160 billion in AUM, plans to boost its AUM in the region to $2-$3bn in the next 2-3 years from the present $1bn, said Yasir AbuShaban, a Dubai-based principal with Mercer Wealth.

“Within the next two to three years, we are looking at reaching $2 to $3 billion as a conservative estimate and we do see an opportunity to do so,” said Mr AbuShaban.

Mercer does not directly make investments, but allocates clients’ money they have discretion to, to professional asset managers. They also provide advice to clients.

“We have buying power. We can negotiate on their (client’s) behalf with asset managers to provide them lower fees than they otherwise would have to get on their own,” he added.

Mercer Wealth’s clients include sovereign wealth funds, family offices, and insurance companies among others.

From its office in Dubai, Mercer also looks after Africa, India and Turkey, where they also see opportunity for growth.

Wealth creation in Middle East and Africa (MEA) grew 8.5 per cent to $8.1 trillion last year from $7.5tn in 2015, higher than last year’s global average of 6 per cent and the second-highest growth in a region after Asia-Pacific which grew 9.9 per cent, according to consultancy Boston Consulting Group (BCG). In the region, where wealth grew just 1.9 per cent in 2015 compared with 2014, a pickup in oil prices has helped in wealth generation.

BCG is forecasting MEA wealth will rise to $12tn by 2021, growing at an annual average of 8 per cent.

Drivers of wealth generation in the region will be split evenly between new wealth creation and growth of performance of existing assets, according to BCG.

Another general trend in the region is clients’ looking for a comprehensive approach to investing, according to Mr AbuShaban.

“Institutional investors or some of the families are seeing a slowdown in the available capital they have to invest and in that sense they are looking at optimizing the way they manage their portfolios and making sure they are not investing haphazardly and different parts of their investment are working together,” said Mr AbuShaban.

Some clients also have a higher appetite for risk, given the low interest-rate environment that does not provide enough yield for some institutional investors. These clients are keen to invest in illiquid assets, such as private equity and infrastructure.

“What we have seen is a desire for higher returns in what has been a low-return environment specifically in various fixed income or bonds,” he said.

“In this environment, we have seen a de facto increase in the risk that clients are taking in things like illiquid investments, private equity investments, infrastructure and private debt, those kind of investments were higher illiquidity results in incrementally higher returns.”

The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, one of the largest sovereign wealth funds, said in its 2016 report that has gradually increased its exposure in direct private equity and private credit transactions, mainly in Asian markets and especially in China and India. The authority’s private equity department focused on structured equities owing to “their defensive characteristics.”