So, the argument is that the reason for the infrequent spread of MRSA in Dutch hospitals is because there's naturally little MRSA in the general Dutch population. We're getting into a chicken-and-egg situation here, but I would say that the general consensus is that there is little MRSA in Dutch hospitals (and therefore in the general population) because they have worked hard to block transmission of MRSA between patients and to cure the few who have it. MRSA is an increasing problem in many countries throughout Europe, so it's unlikely that the Dutch are somehow spared from exposure to it. The UK's rate is not far below the US, and Germany and Austria have seen a rapid rise recently.

Like I said, limiting antibiotic use is just a part of their overall strategy and not the main reason for their success. The part that the British wish they could emulate is the Dutch screening, isolation, and treatment strategy, usually referred to as "search and destroy". More than anything, that's the reason why Holland has been able to keep their hospitals relatively free of MRSA. A large proportion of the MRSA they see are in patients who originally acquired it in in a non-Dutch hospital, so their hospitals are being exposed to it, but they've been able to identify it, contain it and keep it from becoming endemic. Once a hospital has become thoroughly colonized with MRSA, it's pretty tough to get rid of and continues to infect more and more patients.