Morris,
It has more to do with the harmonics as a result of the shorter stroke than the actual strength of the crankshaft. I believe the 1500 one is actually heavier (and therefore stronger). It's a matter of the enormous loads added by adding stroke. You'll notice the 14k RPM cycle engines have grossly undersquare bore to stroke ratios (the bore is much greater than the stroke). Conversely, the 1275 and the 1500 have undersquare bore/stroke ratios, about 1.12:1? for the 1275 if I recall correctly, and 1.17:1 for the 1500. These're just numbers i pulled out of my head, but once upon a time I calculated it. (It's a very simple calculation, just gotta check the books).
Either engine would probably do fine, but you'd probably be better off with a torquier engine to turbo, as the off-boost torque/power would be better, as well as the fact that the longer stroke yields greater volume at a lower RPM, leading to faster spool-up versus the 1300. Also, ultimate boost numbers would probably be the same, so you'll end up with more power from a 1500 due to the larger displacement.
As an aside, I believe that a TR5/6 engine (2.5L) is actually just a 1500 engine with a .060" overbore and two extra cylinders tacked on. Therefore, if they do well with turbo's, the 1500 probably would too. Although the longer crank has two more bearings on it, I doubt that makes a big difference in stiffening the crankshaft. In addition, longer cranks develop harmonics at lower RPM, so this would be a negative factor, versus the 1500. The additional center main bearings may help to cancel out the negative presented by the longer crank, but I don't know about that.