because the Ulster-Scots "industry" itself makes Ulster-Scots look stupid and controversial
Call me a coward, but for the time being all I'm going to say here is that yes, it occasionally does - and I know that the vast majority of you will agree. And the low-quality high-profile "fluff" is sometimes all that the wider public see. So the flip side of that - the high-quality, low-profile work - has little or no impact.
And therefore the public perception of Ulster-Scots is badly skewed. People aren't stupid, but when the only encounter that they have with Ulster-Scots subject matter is trivial and lacking in depth, they then assume that Ulster-Scots as a whole is trivial and lacking in depth. Which is a disgraceful disservice to a wonderful legacy.
Back in February 2007 I wrote this article for AgendaNI, which concludes with:
"...To be fair, most people I’ve met in my time with the Ulster-Scots Agency have an open mind, and are open to being persuaded that Ulster-Scots has depth and credibility. But they have no time for nonsense and fluff – and neither do I. Our story is too important to be cheapened, or to allow it to be denigrated..."
More to follow once I've worked out how to tiptoe through this particular minefield...
Further Reading: What exactly is Ulster-Scots?