I agree that there's no point. It's a wild claim and would almost certainly be extemely well known were there any major evidence for it. And I'm not being deliberately petty either, and talking in terms of absolute iron-clad proof, I recognise that that's too high a standard for cllaims about something such as a person's motive. I mean strong, very persuasive evidence in favour.
I think you know it doesn't exist.
It's not claim for me and many others it was very real. Of course, I didn't hear her or her colleagues say 'let's divide the country', or receive briefings, or see it written down but I'm sure industrial and political strategies and scenarios were discussed that amounted to the same thing. It's seems implausible she and her cabinet wouldn't recognise or foresee the impact the policies might have and where.
Decisions deliberated on and then enacted equal deliberate choices, unless you're asking us to believe her and her government had no idea what the outcome would be or the consequences for many?
She chose to let the chips fall where they may. Unsurprisingly there were winners and losers and strong views formed.
I think you know this.