I do not think your anti-Nikon arguments are solidly conclusive, they're more like your personal opinion.
Which you're entitled to express.
Until about 2 years ago, I would have been inclined to strongly agree with your opinion.
What a difference a gear (change) or 2 makes.
Actually, thank you for calling me out on that. I'm usually good about adding the requisite "for me", "for my needs", etc. And you are 100% correct.
Ergonomics are highly subjective, barring just outright design disasters. And I'll be the first to admit my firsthand knowledge is limited and somewhat dated (~5 years or so), and these days is mostly relegated to secondhand reports. There surely are people that just love Nikon ergonomics, and those that hate Canon ergonomics. I believe though, based purely on anecdotal evidence mind you, that the opposite is true quite a bit more often. But like I said, subjective.
UI I believe though, is more inclined to being objective. Still I'm sure there are people that prefer it, or are just plain used to the random cluster it has evolved to become. But overall it's much easier to point to something in the UI design and say it's bad, and actually support that argument with facts and logic.
Maybe the 12-24 is not without it's flaws; however, seeing as how there is really no direct comparison to be had, I tend to give it the benefit of the doubt. Plus being without peer, it is by default the best. It's worth the effort for a non-trivial number of Canon shooters to convert them, so it can't be that
The 70-200/4VR I really haven't heard much about. It is good that they finally filled that glaring hole in their lens lineup though.