The entire course has been devised in consultation with the RCVS - you simply couldn't just set up a vet school without that. Yes, some qualified vets might be prejudiced against Notts vets, but then so are many qualified vets against, for example, Cambridge-qualified vets. In a lot of cases, I'm sure it has far more to do with 'better the devil you know' than making an informed judgement.
Any vet with an ounce of sense (and I'm sure there are plenty!) will be able to see that Nottingham's qualification, albeit the result of a slightly different teaching method, will be just as valid as any other British vet school, as it will have been validated by the RCVS. The only reason it isn't yet validated is because the course is not yet completed, and obviously won't be until the first intake of students reach the end of their 5th year.
A different approach to the course is simply designed to cater for students differently. It may appeal to some, but not to others - that doesn't make it inferior or superior to any other course. A qualified vet from Notts will still have to prove the same 'day one competence' as one from anywhere else, they just may have acquired the skills and knowledge in a different order. And no, it isn't 'easier' to get into than Liverpool - actually the entrance requirements are much more specific. I think the two places are just looking for different things.
Let's face it, science and medicine has come a long way in the last 50 years, which is how long it is since a new vet school opened in the UK. Why shouldn't a new vet course be equally forward-thinking?