His reference to a lack of dependency issues is a runtime aspect: A Python program requires the right Python interpreter and all the right Python modules to be set up correctly on the target system.I know, that's why I said that it is true for deployment. It's an advantage of compilers that compile in packages/modules statically into the binary. E.g. Haskell also has this advantage.
The downside, of course, is that if there is a security vulnerability in some package, you have to recompile and redeploy all your binaries, rather than replacing one dynamic library.
Whether it is an advantage depends on the usage scenario.
I think you realised that, but versioning imports in Go is at exactly the same state as versioning imports in Python. I can't write an import statement in Python that describes what version I need, nor can I in Go.
Or Haskell or Java or Ruby. But these languages have standard (or nearly standard) tools that allow you to specify versioned dependencies (Cabal, Maven, Gem). Go puts package management more or less in the language, but doesn't do version management.
So, your comparison here is not fair. You should compare Go's package management with Python plus setuptools/easy_install, Java plus Maven, Haskell plus Cabal, etc.