I would take exception to JimFs view somewhat. The main thrust of the joint teams statement is not so much the lack of capability of the aircraft as to the lack of deployment of the aircraft for particular tasks. (However there is also a lack of capability - we have only recently gone over to the 189 as our cover. Previously the 139 could lift 2 MR team members only. (Or 3 if you left a crew member behind). The 189 can just lift a part - although only a small one. the ground clearance on the aircraft is a real bugbear though. Actually getting it on the ground is a real issue.)
I think the main thrust of the article is that the aircraft should be deployed where available to cover the type of incidents described. If they can make the job safer then they should do so? There is also the small matter of why a team member should give up more time/income than necessary to save the government money.
Also there is a further statement in response/support from a respected ex-Military MR team member available on the Cairngorm MR Facebook page. It's worth a read.
Also note that there was/is a split in MR in Scotland with the 4 busiest teams forming iSMR largely in a debate over how government funding was distributed to MR in Scotland. MR in Scotland (unlike England and Wales) receives quite a bit of government funding. In England and Wales the biggest government funding given to MR is the recently introduced VAT rebate.