Britain Needs More Billionaires to Shape Big Tech Decisions, McRae Says

A column by Hamish McRae argues that Britain’s growth in technology and artificial intelligence will depend as much on cultivating homegrown billionaires as on securing high-profile foreign investment, even as officials tout a new US‑UK Technology Prosperity Deal. The piece centers on Britain’s evolving relationship with American tech giants and the hope that the arrangement could anchor the UK as aEuropean base for innovation. Yet McRae cautions readers not to overlook the politics and practicalities surrounding large, publicized deals, which historically can outpace measurable outcomes. He suggests that while the deal may help accelerate AI research and commercialisation in Britain, the bigger question is whether it will translate into lasting domestic influence over the sector's direction or simply channel wealth and decision-making through foreign-led platforms.

McRae notes that language, culture, and regulatory alignment make Britain an attractive proposition for United States technology companies seeking a European foothold. He draws a historical parallel with the late-1980s Big Bang reforms that made London a global financial hub, implying that Britain’s readiness to serve as a European base remains a factor in current negotiations. Yet he warns that the country risks becoming more of a “client state” if it relies on external wealth and terms rather than cultivating its own entrepreneurs who can steer the next wave of innovation. The piece frames the Technology Prosperity Deal as a potentially useful catalyst but one that should not substitute for a clear, long‑term strategy to grow homegrown leadership in AI and related technologies.

Turning to wealth data, the column references the Bloomberg Billionaires Index to illustrate how tech wealth is concentrated in the United States. Nine of the top ten richest individuals in the world built fortunes in technology, led by Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and the founders of Google, with Bernard Arnault of LVMH as the lone non‑American in the top tier. In the United Kingdom, the two wealthiest individuals are Sir James Dyson and Sir Jim Ratcliffe, ranked roughly 130th and 177th on the index, and the country has just two billionaires in the top 200. McRae uses these figures to argue that Britain’s growth depends not only on attracting foreign investment but on expanding domestic wealth creation, a challenge that is complicated by perceptions of tax policies that can prompt wealthy individuals to relocate. The author stresses that talent resides within the UK and that American firms view the country as a key access point to a broader pool of engineers, scientists, and entrepreneurs.

The columnist emphasizes that there is considerable talent within the UK that American firms want to access, and that the deepest strategic question is who makes the big calls on technology policy and investment. If decision‑making remains dominated by foreign wealth, the UK risks losing influence over AI and other cutting‑edge fields even as it gains a slice of the deal’s benefits. The piece argues for policy choices—especially tax on high earners and capital—that encourage wealth retention and entrepreneurship rather than draining the country’s best minds and capital to other jurisdictions. Taken together, the Technology Prosperity Deal could be welcome and meaningful, McRae writes, but it should complement a broader strategy to nurture a homegrown tech elite capable of shaping decisions at the highest levels.

Ultimately, the columnist argues that Britain’s path to a meaningful role in AI and technology hinges on more than signs of international cooperation. It requires a domestic ecosystem that can produce and retain high‑end wealth, a tax regime that does not push talent abroad, and a regulatory environment that accelerates rather than hinders innovation. The piece ends on a cautious note: welcome the partnership with the United States, but pursue policies that ensure the country can decide its own tech future rather than serving as a remunerated satellite to foreign capital.