Only me and Geoff?
The decision to prematurely retire the Sea Harrier was considered and discussed as one of the regular 'Options'. The Brass recommended it to the Secretary of State as being one of the 'least painful'. It's been arrived at after due process, I'm afraid.
Any 'option', if exercised, would materially effect Britain's ability to conduct coalition ops, and would inevitably require someone else to cover the gap, whether it was withdrawing the Jaguar, cutting Typhoon Tranche 3, withdrawing a Trident boat, whatever. And such steps are always taken unilaterally, by our own Government, and not collaboratively with our allies. That may be wrong, and it may be 'unhelpful', but it's the way these things are done.
Since you like questions, here are a couple for you.
When, since 1990, would it have been more useful for the RN to despatch an all-SHar air wing than an all GR7/9 air wing?
When would coalition allies or land-based air have been unable to provide sufficient AD cover to meet the actual threat?
Make a sound business case for spending more to retain two eight-aircraft single-role, short range AD squadrons than for retaining three 13-aircraft multi-role squadrons or for retaining four 13 aircraft single-role long range AD squadrons.