Whingeing git now,
You'd be surprised. Not only a journo, but a busy one for the last 20+ years, and reasonably well informed, if not respected.
And I'm entirely happy to be compared with Bill Sweetman, thanks, who's better informed than you are or will ever be, with your kneejerk prejudice and facile and fatuous opinions.
1) "The fact is carriers are used to project power and protect overseas possessions in a way that shore based land power cannot." Much more slowly, at many times the cost, and all to deploy a small force incapable of sustaining a high sortie rate for an extended period, you mean?
2) "If you need that capability then you need carriers." Well no, you evidently don't. The UK has been successfully projecting power (in the Balkans, the Middle East, and other places) since 1982 - and in EVERY instance (even when the decision was taken to send a CVS) land-based air power COULD have done the job - and could always have done it quicker, better and cheaper.
Carriers are a useful niche capability, but a niche capability should not be so expensive (at a time of tight budgetary limits) as to distort the entire defence budget.
Scrapping Harrier early: Saves £1 Bn +
Scrapping CVS early: Saves ???
Scrapping CVF: Saves £4 Bn +
Scrapping JSF: Saves at least £5.4 Bn/$8.052 Bn (66 x $122 m) in flyaway costs ALONE.
By contrast, you could buy 48 Gripen NGs for £2.3 Bn, all-in.
or 58 Gripen NGs (including Fuel, Spares, and Upgrades for a 30 year service life, an MLU, and ”Uncertainties” ) for £5.29 Bn.
It's not that carriers aren't useful - it's that they are not cost effective, and are unaffordable.
And the RN didn't have a great record of making even the STOVL SHar available for non-carrier ops in the past, and a 66 aircraft force of JSF would certainly be tied to CVF.