Has it occurred to George Osborne that if he pays civil servants more in those parts of the country where people are well off, and less in those where they are poor, he's likely to find that all the good civil servants will want to go where the money is, and the poor one (and yes, there are undoubtedly poor ones) will end up in the poverty zones?
This will be particularly counter productive in the departments that deal with social security. In, for example, Bath, where people are relatively well off, and there is a relatively low unemployment rate, there will be huge demand for positions in the Jobcentre. Those who are unemployed are less likely to be saddled with a string of criminal convictions and drug and alcohol issues, so the job will be easier... and the pay will be reasonable.
But in the likes of Liverpool, no one will want to work in the Jobcentre. The pay will be low and so the least capable civil servants will end up there, just where really good people are needed to meet the real challenges of the mass of unemployed.
Still, as long as it saves money, eh George?
I chose two English areas, although clearly there is abysmal poverty in some areas of Scotland, and a fair amount of money too. But you see, by the time he gets all this stuff organised (and past the trades unions who are going to fight it tooth and nail), he won't have squat to do with our civil service!