I knew Bannock's post would start this one again.
Airfields stay still, which I rather like about them, so everyone knows where they are. But they are hard and you don't need to put all your avtur and bombs in one place. Takes a lot of effort to close a runway for 24 hours, but there are others (although nowhere near as many as their used to be). SAM systems are available. Of course, you're talking all out war to see that kind of threat to mainland UK or regional war to see attacks on Overseas bases. Reach, with deployed force multipliers (still like that term no matter what the others say) means you can operate from bases out of harm's way, given the right circumstances, obviously. Pluses and minuses as always.
Carriers move about a bit, but surveillance and targeting technology have moved on in recent decades and satellites and other assets can achieve good coverage anywhere in the world - not all of it all at once though. With the right assets, a carrier can be well defended from air, surface and sub-surface threats depending on the amount of effort an enemy is willing to put into it and how many assets the UK is willing and able to provide for protection. Not sure about the size of air wing that might be fielded. The ability to position, either to stand off or close in is an obvious advantage, but that may be facing ground based assets with greater reach. Vulnerability is an issue as it MAY only take one weapon to take out the runway, fuel and bomb farm and there may not be another one within reach unless the "boys" come home with a lot of gas. Low tech managed to inflict a lot of hurt in '82 and the failure to hit a capital ship had an element of good fortune in it - but things have moved on for both sides. So, pluses and minuses again.
On balance, maybe that's why a lot of nations like to have some runways that move and some that stay still.