When we had two MPA bases and a UK requirement then St Mawgan and Kinloss made sense (Ballykelly better?).
With only one base Kinloss was perfect for north and west and east but not for swapps. St Mawgan was bad for Skaw, GIUK.
Waddington is both less than ideal than both Kinloss and St Mawgan but is a better compromise than either. Also, as a mounting base, it is probably better for deployment to the east Med and beyond. It is also well placed for AAR should that be needed.
Phony Tony - Protection of the approaches to the Clyde needs only to extend by a few 100s of miles off the coast so why have a very small number of shiny jets when a fleet of smaller cheaper ac will do the job.
Superficially that might seem a solution but it would lead to the procurement of an aircraft with limited versatility. More, smaller, aircraft might be less expensive but would require more operating crews, more engineering support (more turn rounds), more administrative infrastructure and ultimately might lack essential multi-mission capability, viz ASW and ASuW on one platform.
A parallel would be with surface forces - few T45 or lots of patrol vessels. Now remind me, what has dark blue always gone for and still is?
PS, I concede that loss of one smaller aircraft from 24 would represent only 4% of the fleet whereas loss of one of 8 . . .