Originally Posted by
westernhero
You could take the expertise of the Wail. Or you could read the actual evidence session
here. Relevant bits from Q174 or thereabouts and what is said is somewhat different from the howls of outrage above. What that part of the debate is actually about is whether the 2% GDP number is actually sufficient for UK defence given re-emergence of state on state threats. Something that Sir Mark spends the period immediately after that section rivalling Sir Humphrey in equivocation. Fair play to him, he spent over two hours being grilled, even if he wasn't particularly convincing on the fiscal neutrality and proposed cuts part of the piece.
Comes across as a very capable CS, with certain preconceptions about defence and an innate assumption that spending more money is not required - at least not in defence.