I think the main win is flexibility, you don't need as much infrastructure at your "spaceport". The payload is small so the fuel savings from launching closer to the equator would be minimal, especially for higher inclination orbits. Plus it's an easy political win to do the launches locally (the UK's plan calls for spaceport in Scotland, England, and Wales. I suppose that's their equivalent of NASA projects being built in all 50 states to spread the pork around). Plus doing launches in overseas colonies/possessions can be politically fraught. It occasionally has been an issue in France

Southernmost tip of the UK… Gibraltar! ;-)

Or the Malvinas.

Which are slightly further from the equator than London!

Your typing impediment misspelt "Falkland Islands"

Or another occupied territory, Diego Garcia.

The Falkland Islands are only as "occupied" as Argentina itself.

To be fair I don't think it would fit there. Another big maybe would be the channel islands

Have you not seen thunderbirds?!

BOTs don’t count as the UK, or you could use British Antarctic Territory… Ascension Island is very close to the equator

> Ascension Island is very close to the equator

Oh, the branding opportunities!

Sovereign Cyprus base territories!

There's been talk of a spaceport in Scotland as well (possibly a competing bid to this). The touted benefit of being further North was easier launches into polar orbits.

And reduces political risks.

> I'm surprised that anyone wants to launch from that far north. Most launch sites are further south, so you get more velocity from the earth's rotation.

The reason is that Scotland and northerly launch sites favour launches into polar orbits.