Rethinking “Greatness”:
Why G7 Membership doesn’t tell the whole story
In a previous article, I questioned how we measure a nation’s “greatness.” Since then, a few readers have asked for clarification—particularly around the G7, GDP, and why I place more weight on alternative measures.
I’m happy to dig into that, but I want to set the mood with something that has been described as “The most honest 4 minutes on television” The opening scene in HBO Drama “The Newsroom.”
The Main Character Will McAvoy is a TV News Anchor appearing on a Q&A Panel at an American College when he gets asked a very common question.
McAvoy was initially reticent to answer the question, perhaps foreseeing the reaction he would get. However when pressed he delivered the truth, and his foresight was confirmed.
Despite this audience being educated, or smart enough to get to college they were blind to the fact that America may not be the greatest country in the world, McAvoy opened their eyes, by looking at measures that reflect how well the country was run, rather than the scale of it’s economy, or it’s military power.
They didn’t like what they saw.
It’s probably natural to want to think the best of your country, it wouldn’t be pleasant to have your illusion shattered, especially when the truth can’t be denied.
This clip sets the scene for the rest of this article.
A lot of importance seems to be placed on our G7 Membership, as a symbol of our influence in the world. But it’s important to know What the G7 is, and perhaps more importantly What It Isn’t
The Group of Seven began life in 1973 as the G5—an informal gathering of finance ministers from the world’s largest developed economies. Over time it expanded, both is size and remit:
From G5 → G7
Briefly to G8 (before Russia’s suspension)
Now operating as the G7, with the EU also participating
Beyond Economics, now entering every sphere of Global Geopolitics.
Today’s G7 members, ranked by economic size, are:
1st United States
2nd Germany
3rd Japan
4th United Kingdom
5th France
6th Italy
7th Canada
The EU (as a non-numerated observer)
On paper, it’s a club of the world’s most powerful economies, but look closer—and the cracks start to show. Who’s Missing, and Why It Matters?
Take China, Second-largest economy in the world, Global superpower, No seat at the table, Why?
Because the G7 isn’t just about economic size—it’s also about being a “developed democracy”. China fails that test.
Also look at India, One of the largest economies globally, A democracy, yet still excluded, Why?
Because despite its scale, it’s not yet considered fully “developed” due to widespread poverty.
So already, we can see The G7 is not simply “the biggest economies” It’s also a selective club based on a particular definition of democracy and development.
The Problem is, much of the G7’s legitimacy rests on one key metric: GDP.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) = the total monetary value of all finished goods and services produced over a specific time, serving as an of economic health. It measures economic growth, reflecting increases in wages, profits, and production.
But GDP is expressed in two very different ways.
Nominal GDP = the total market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period, calculated using current prices. put simply total size of an economy
GDP per capita (Per Person Parity or PPP) = is a country’s economic output per person, adjusted for local cost of living and inflation. Making it better for comparing living standards than nominal GDP
The G7 metric is Nominal GDP, which only tells you the “scale” of a nations’ economy, but it tells you very little about how people within that economy actually live.
Take the United States:
Ranked 1st in nominal GDP
9th in GDP per capita (PPP)
Still strong, but noticeably less dominant.
Now consider Monaco:
Ranked 148th in nominal GDP
1st in GDP per capita
So which is the “richer” country? the one with the biggest pile of money? or the one where individuals are, on average, wealthier?
The USA could buy and sell Monaco due to it’s scale, but no-one would believe that the average American would be wealthier than the same Monegasque.
If We Ranked the G7 Differently, using GDP per capita instead of GDP Nominal, the global “top table” would look completely different:
The GDP Per Capita G7 would be;
1st Monaco - 148th in Nominal GDP
2nd Lichtenstein - 150th in Nominal GDP
3rd Luxembourg - 75th in Nominal GDP
4th Ireland - 22nd in Nominal GDP
5th Switzerland - 20th in Nominal GDP
6th Iceland - 102nd in Nominal GDP
7th Singapore - 27th in Nominal GDP
Not one of the current G7 makes that list, that alone should raise an obvious question,
Why do we treat G7 Membership as a measure of status and success?
Are there better ways to Measure a Country’s success?
If we care about how well a country is run, and not just how big it is, there are better metrics.
Human Development - The United Nations Development Programme produces the Human Development Index (HDI), measuring:
Health
Education
Standard of living
The Human Development Index G7 would be;
1st Iceland
2nd Switzerland
3rd Norway
4th Denmark
5th Germany
6th Sweden
7th Australia
Only one “proper” G7 country appears, and it’s not the UK.
The OECD pension quality G7 would be;
1st The Netherlands
2nd Iceland
3rd Denmark
4th Israel
5th Finland
6th Sweden
7th Norway
Again, small, independent, well run nations dominate.
Using these metrics a pattern emerges across multiple metrics, wealth per person, wellbeing, social security, it just keeps repeating: Small, independent countries outperform larger “global powers.”
Meanwhile, large nations generate vast economies, but often distribute it unevenly, and prioritise global influence over domestic wellbeing
So Where Does Scotland Fit?
Well here’s the key point, we don’t fit anywhere… YET. We’re told that by being part of the UK, we share in;
G7 status
UN Security Council influence
Global prestige
But in reality? Scotland has no real influence within the UK, let alone any independent voice at any of those big forums.
And perhaps more importantly: What tangible benefit does that “status” bring to everyday life?
Better wages?
Better infrastructure?
Better public services?
Or just a seat at a table where Scotland isn’t even speaking?
Because being British is showing no sign of getting better any time soon.
Maintaining “great power status” also comes at a cost:
Military spending
Diplomatic positioning
Political priorities shaped by global influence
And those priorities don’t always align with improving daily life at home, and as a consequence also make us a target.
We have a different vision,
Independence wouldn’t make Scotland a “big player.” And that’s the point, It would allow Scotland to focus on:
Wealth per person, not total size
Wellbeing, not status
Long-term stability, not short-term influence
To aim for a place in some of the “Alternate G7’s” instead of the actual G7.
A country that measures success not by how loud it speaks on the world stage, but by how well it looks after its people.
That may sound less glamorous, but it’s also a lot more meaningful, Because in the end, “greatness” isn’t about scale, It’s about quality of life.
But that’s a choice Scotland hasn’t been allowed to make….. yet.
David Birkett