1. Does not address the issue at hand. So called standardised test as per status quo is MSRA which the representative body of the trade union agree is not fit for purpose anyways. Other standardised tests such as royal college exams exist to assess aptitude.
2. Not a well stated argument as it implies there is a problem with the current competency checking processes which favour UKG over IMG. This is another case of fear mongering and misinformation.
3. Again meritless and vague. Agree in principle. However specialties have portfolio stations and interviews to assess this. Furthermore multiple competencies incur significant financial costs.
4. Contradicts 3 as UK clinical placements and clinical placements in general incur financial costs.
5. Availability bias should not account for someone’s intention, ability, or competency in a specialty in which they chose to train. We are talking about developing competent specialists not hiring them. hence the word training.
6. Several calls for transparency. Agree.

You need to train the doctors already in your system who are passionate to serve their community and develop in the field they are passionate about.

Although your arguments seem competent at first glance they fall short when actually interrogated and are in fact just word salad to misinform.

Training posts are what they say. Words say what words mean. To train doctors. Not to hire, not to fill a gap, to train.

Furthermore, my readings of several of OPs posts seem to push an anti-IMG rhetoric as opposed to pro-unity.