Good lord, what an appalling badly researched article.
The reason that no MOD CS are being made compulsorily redundant is that they had over 15000 applicants for the 5000 people they needed to lose. They managed to hit their targets for the next 3 years with the first tranche.
What I think the good PUS is trying to say, and as always with the media, has spun out of context, is that when looking at manpower, there is an expectation that CS can be posted into a wider range of career posts because the training required is less technical, and the career plot is managed in a very different way.
In HM Forces, you may spend 20 years as a widget operator, doing courses that take 2-3 years to complete to get the basics right, and then being a deep specialist within a very narrow career field where everyone knows everyone. You may do posts outside this area, but generally you'll come back in to it, and thats where you experience lies. In the CS, its much more generalist in approach, and its easier to park a generalist project manager in one TLB, and move him into another TLB. A CS has very generalist skills, and is broadly appointable because they lack deep specialisations at most levels.
Its much more difficult to do that with a deeply specialised widget operator, where there may only be one location for them, or their entire trade group is being scrapped.In this instance, SNCOs in particular would suffer as although they'd have broader military skills, if the kit or equipment they have spent years using and maintaining is being taken out of service, and no replacement capability exists, then its quite a challenge to retrain experienced staff into a whole new system, and working out where to stick them that doesnt mess up existing career structures and promotion prospects, and doesnt mess with the manpower structure.
So yes, from a purely objective view - its slightly easier to relocate some generalist career civil servants because they don't have the same promotion system, or career structure. Similarly, there seems to be a view that its often easier to consider Forces personnel for redundancy at the same time because its hard to see how they can be continued in service without causing major training, manpower and other challenges.
Its not an attack on the competency of HM Forces, and I hope people see this report for what it is - the deliberate misinterpretation of words, and not a statement suggesting that HM Forces are in any way less competent or professional than the CS.
Its all part of the DT's wider 'if you are an MOD CS you must be EVIL' campaign.