I'm fine with no-coding UX specialists however - I have notice that not being able to code at all while working in a rather "techy" role is often a proxy for not being able to create a coherent mental model of the the processes and features that they are building an interface for.
This might be a bigger or smaller problem - if the system complexity is low, then maybe "superficial" features like readability, flow and layout is more important. It's hard enough to get good at - I suspect that some inherent flair is required to get good at that.
If there is a true inherent complexity, then the more hard-core aspects of modelling and how well the users can understand and interact with the model is of more importance. It's another skill set, but when it's needed it's very important to get right.
Learning to code typically enhances ones modelling skills, and more importantly "failed" devs are probably not suited for UX either.
There are of course plenty of people that are intelligent and smart enough to get god on "modelling" on their own.
That said, there seems to be a lot of UX people around that have read a few books and are practicing some generalized rules they found on some websites, and could fall head first in big pile of good design without noticing it... I doubt it would be hard to compete with them. A cool haircut seems to be enough.
While I am whining, while Personas is a good tool - keep it to a minimum - no full size cutout dolls, CV, background story, accessories, etc. I suggest to keep it to the level described in User Story Mapping (Patterson) and stop there... Anchor the personas with the sales guys, support guys, and people that potentially have met a user.