Don't quote me but I think you would still be eligible for EPRSC funding. However I think the university would take into consideration a previous non-completion during the application process.

I take it you are thinking of quitting?

I am sorry no one answered earlier but that looks like an okay guide. The proposal can vary in length depending on the application/funding body but I would aim to keep it between 2-4 pages. The proposal structure can vary a lot, however I think you should aim to explain the gap in knowledge and how you want to solve it. Introduce the topic, explain the current state of the art but also say what you think needs to be researched. They aren't looking for a detailed literature review but you should use literature to explain/confirm parts of the proposal.

I structured my proposal as follows; introduction to a high level problem (global warming) and possible solution (my field). I then explained that there was some large problems in that field with regards to commercialisation (had a couple of references to back it up). Introduced my topic and how it would solve one of the problems. I then listed a pile of potential problems with my topic, followed by possible solutions (I threw in a lot of buzzwords). Finally I mentioned what equipment I would use and what I would initially focus on. BTW, it was a 2 page proposal for a fully funded project (title was already decided) in engineering.

Reviewers butchered my paper to focus on an aspect that I think is trivial. I proposed using a different fields' assessment criteria to demonstrate the novelty of the work. However the reviewers believe that I cannot mix assessment criteria, so I must ignore a significant chunk of my work. However, I see that an imperfect published paper is better than an unpublished "perfect" paper.

Do you disagree with your supervisor's hypothesis or just the forced inclusion? I wouldn't worry about referencing your supervisor, as the reviewers will make you include some random articles as well.

Need more info!

Like do you have already have a research question? Are you struggling with defining the novelty, structure or style? We can't help you without basic info.

Your industry experience will matter more than your MSc from 12 years ago. Universities consider mature students differently and understand that your experience is valuable. Though have you considered funding for a second masters? Also, you will probably get asked about your pass at MSc and it would be good to have a answer explaining that.

Is your UK funding secure? Because you could continue your PhD in the UK but do the work in the France. There are lots of travel schemes for European travel and you could become a visiting student at the French Uni. That way you could probably keep your current funding without losing your supervisor. It is not ideal but could be a stop-gap.

I don't know anyone who has moved their PhD to another country but I know a few people who have moved between UK universities. When their supervisors moved, the supervisor usually asked for funding as part of their job application. I think it is easier in the UK because research councils somewhat standardize funding with similar regulations.

So you have a masters degree and you are wondering if if you need a second masters to do a PhD?

Many people before you have done PhDs without a specialized masters and have done quite well. You learn quite a lot as you go through your PhD; from experience, your supervisor and other PhD students. Their are also books that you can read or you could just copy someone else's method.So you don't need a specialized masters to succeed, I think 3+1 has benefits if you focus on methods and topics directly related to your PhD.

Also, I know my department (Engineering), they prefer 3+1 students over 3.5, and will push people towards 3+1. As the masters part of the course is relatively profitable to run and my department likes money. So if you applied for both at my uni they would accept you onto the 3+1.

I agree with Tudor_Queen, a 3+1 scheme is great if you think you need an extra year of learning skills.

A PhD is three years of pain, suffering and misery but it is worth it the end because you like the topic. If you don't like the topic now, you will hate it in 3 years.

I am sorry to hear this. As the others have said, talk with the graduate school and anyone senior about what you can do.

How bad is the revise and resubmit? Is it the entire concept, the data itself or overall quality?

This new PhD is not an offer and it will probable be a least 6 months before starting. In your previous post you were worried about money and said you quit your old job. So can you support yourself until the next PhD starts, even if you get it?

I thought most universities restricted PhDs by publication to members of staff or alumni. I honestly don't know any universities that publicly offer it and I think you would have better luck asking universities directly.

Send an email inquiring about when you can expect a decision or will it be decided soon, as you want to pursue other opportunities.

Usually, if they are not replying you haven't got the job. You can not be certain no-one else applied, as the head of the group could have received CVs informally from other people, similarly to yourself.