I haven't followed associate results as well as I should but aside from that bizarre lightning-in-a-bottle qualifier loss to Kenya, doesn't NL have better results than Scotland? (And UAE?)
Admittedly the weather in Netherlands is singularly unsuited to cricket.
In the qualifying tournament the Netherlands lost their warmup games comfortably to UAE and Canada, then got hammered by Namibia once the tournament started and, as mentioned, lost to Kenya at the end. They did manage to beat PNG and Uganda, but that was it. Once they were eliminated they beat Nepal and Canada comfortably in the 'play offs'. Scotland on the other hand won the entire qualifying tournament, only losing one game in the process.
NL recently won the Division 2 final but that's for teams ranked 17 down so that's not exactly a big achievement.
They perform a lot better when their side is littered with South Africans with Dutch heritage and an Australian whose mother was born in Dutch New Guinea (worst qualification ever btw), but given Tec15's point centred around how many Englishmen with Scottish heritage are in the Scotland side, the fact that NL might've performed better in a tournament that included a bunch of ring-ins for them doesn't demonstrate to me the 'heart' he was speaking of.
If he argued that it might've been better to watch Cooper, van der Gugten, Myburgh, Rippon and RtD (if he could be bothered) than Scotland from a skill perspective, that might've been a point, but the Netherlands were an awful example of what he was actually saying. Any other side would've been a better example really. They might've put up a more competitive showing (not that Scotland have been embarrassing though tbf) but it wouldn't have been because of 'heart'. Their team is so full of 'heart' that a quarter of them only show up for TV games.
I'm being deliberately harsh but I've got nothing against Dutch cricket really. It was just a silly point to argue against Scotland.