DAVID Cameron has admitted that if there had been a Yes vote in the referendum, he would have wanted to have stood down but would have soldiered on out of a sense of duty.
Ahead of the poll, when the matter of his resignation was raised the Prime Minister repeatedly made clear the issue did not arise and that the referendum was not about his future but that of Scotland and the UK. Many argued, however, losing the Union would have made his position untenable.
But when asked in a newspaper interview about the possibility of him standing down if Scots had voted for independence, he admitted: "I thought about it a lot. Emotionally I would have been very winded and wounded. I thought in many ways that is what I would want to do."
Mr Cameron even contemplated the speech he would have had to have made from the steps of No 10 in the event of a Yes vote.
"Obviously, I thought what I would have to say if there was a Yes vote. I would have felt it as a huge blow. I'm very glad I didn't have to say it."
But the PM stressed that on reflection he would have wanted to remain in post even if the result had gone the other way.
"I just don't think(resigning would have been) the right thing to do. The job of the United Kingdom Prime Minister, whatever the outcome, would be to knuckle down and get on with the job. It would not have been doing your duty."
The PM, who had previously revealed he had only seen highlights of one of the Salmond/Darling head-to-head TV debates and failed to see the other, said he stayed up all night to watch the referendum results on which his own future might have depended.
"I did not sleep," he declared. "I went to bed and tried to sleep but I came down to the press office about three o'clock as the results came in. My children got up; they sensed how worried I was by it. They sat on my knee as the results came in."
Mr Cameron is due to give his keynote speech to the Conservative conference on Wednesday when he is expected to mention the referendum battle and the consequent ones now on-going about what level of extra powers to devolve to Holyrood and how to bring in English Votes for English Laws.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article