Tell me Grok my AI familiar – Why is Talking-up Scotland little referenced in the MSM or by politicians, on both sides in Scotland, and struggling to fundraise? ‘You’re too partisan, do too much and are not glamorous…awk!’

Tell me Grok my AI familiar – Why is Talking-up Scotland little referenced in MSM or by politicians on both sides in Scotland?

Help Talking-up Scotland keep goin

Crowdfunder at: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/help-talking-up-scotland-keep-going

Or by direct bank transfer to: JOHN WATSON ROBERTSON Sort Code – 08-91-04 Account – 12266421

Talking-up Scotland is a long-running, data-heavy pro-independence blog written mainly by retired University of the West of Scotland media politics professor John Robertson. It specialises in daily statistical rebuttals of BBC Scotland, the Herald, Scotsman and similar outlets, arguing they systematically omit positive Scottish Government figures (crime, NHS waits, child poverty, energy, etc.) or frame stories to damage the SNP and the independence case.

It is little cited in mainstream Scottish media or by politicians for several overlapping reasons.Tone and framing. The site does not present itself as a neutral commentator. Posts routinely describe Scottish MSM output as “lies,” “propaganda,” “gaslighting” or “grooming for the Union.” Outlets and politicians rarely platform a source that treats them as systematically dishonest. That applies on both sides: unionist parties have no incentive to amplify it, and SNP figures usually prefer official statistics or more measured voices.

Even sympathetic politicians tend to keep a distance from overtly partisan blogs. Citing one that accuses the BBC of “unchecked propaganda” on a near-daily basis can look unprofessional or tribal. Unionist politicians simply ignore it. The result is that the site circulates mainly among Yes activists, indy podcasts and social-media fact-checkers rather than entering the official or broadcast conversation.In short, it functions as a specialist rebuttal resource for one side of a polarised debate rather than as a source that either media organisations or elected politicians feel they can safely or usefully quote. That is common for tightly focused alternative political blogs, not unique to this one.

Do I not use transparently reliable official sources all the time in the way that few other media do?

Yes — that is one of the site’s clearest distinctive habits, and it is a genuine difference from most daily Scottish news coverage. Talking-up Scotland routinely pulls figures from primary official publications: Recorded Crime in Scotland, Public Health Scotland waiting-time and treatment data, Energy Statistics for Scotland, Scottish Government statistical releases, parliamentary Official Reports, Audit Scotland material, and comparable ONS or England-and-Wales series. Posts frequently link the source and invite readers to check it themselves. The author has described that as a core method: provide the evidence so people can verify rather than take the blog’s word.

Most mainstream reporting does not do this at the same volume or with the same comparative framing. A typical news piece will quote a minister, an opposition spokesperson or a pressure group, headline one number, and move on. It rarely lines up Scotland versus England/Wales on the same metric, notes definitional differences, or reprints the table that sits behind a press release. That gap is real.

Does any of the above help to explain our failure to attract much funding?

Yes. The earlier points map onto the crowdfunder problem fairly directly. The site is useful to a small, already-convinced audience as a stats locker. That is not the same as a donor base.

It lives in an echo chamber. The author has said as much: many daily visitors, far fewer people who read full posts or share them, and comments from much the same circle. People who already agree that the BBC is lying will bookmark it. They often will not pay for another confirmation of what they think they know. A daily rebuttal blog feels abundant, not scarce.

Volume works against asking for money. Several posts a day, long headlines, dense tables. That is good for “I need the crime figure from Tuesday.” It is bad for a fundraising story. Crowdfunders work when there is a single artefact — an investigation, a court case, a film, a paper. “Help me keep posting eight statistical rebuttals a week” is maintenance, not a campaign.

The product is advocacy with footnotes, not a newsroom. Transparent official sources are a strength. The consistent frame — media as unionist propaganda, Scotland performing better if only you saw the right table — tells potential donors on the other side to stay away, and tells exhausted Yes supporters they have already heard this. Unionists will not fund it. SNP-adjacent people who want “respectable” briefing often will not either. That leaves a thin slice: committed readers who both trust the method and have spare money.

It does not generate prestige or fear of missing out. Wings got attention because it made trouble. Bella sits in a cultural conversation. This site rarely breaks a story that politicians or papers have to answer. If citing it does not help anyone’s status, funding it feels like paying for homework.

The ask is personal and unglamorous. It is also easy to defer: “someone else will chip in,” “I already share the posts,” “I am hard-pressed.” The author has noted that only a small fraction of subscribers and an even smaller fraction of social followers give. That pattern is normal for open-access political blogs. It is worse when the audience thinks of the work as a public utility they already consume for free. So the same traits that make it little cited in MSM — partisan tone, reactive fact-checking rather than scoops, limited crossover, high output for a converted readership — also make it a weak donation product. People use it. They do not feel they owe it, and the people who would never use it will not pay to argue with it.

Wow! To the point but should we change….humans?

Help Talking-up Scotland keep goin

Crowdfunder at: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/help-talking-up-scotland-keep-going

Or by direct bank transfer to: JOHN WATSON ROBERTSON Sort Code – 08-91-04 Account – 12266421

Discover more from Talking-up Scotland

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

14 thoughts on “Tell me Grok my AI familiar – Why is Talking-up Scotland little referenced in the MSM or by politicians, on both sides in Scotland, and struggling to fundraise? ‘You’re too partisan, do too much and are not glamorous…awk!’”

  1. Grok is correct- I read TUS every day but get bored reading repeat posts so do others.You are too partisan & spend most of the time talking up SNP & the Scottish government even when we can see that they are in the wrong. 75000 of us left the party for good reason, we couldnt support the lack of action,aping the WM politicians behaviour -corruption,, doing nothing for the constitutional position & more.

    Like

    Reply

  3. Another great idea asking AI…What would a woman’s impression be of With the greatest respect Mrs/Dr corridor care is far less common in your hospital

    Many women would likely read it as patronising, dismissive, and faintly sexist, even if the author’s stated aim is to defend the Scottish NHS.

    The main reasons are:

    • The title’s “Mrs/Dr (?)” makes thedoctor’s professional status seemuncertain or unimportant. Since she is aconsultant and a senior representativeof her medical college, that can look likedeliberate belittling rather than agenuine question.
    • The article focuses on whether she is a“top” consultant and says, “Who am I tosay?” That reads as sarcasm, notrespect.
    • The writer challenges her account ofpatients receiving corridor care bycomparing Scotland with Wales,England, and Northern Ireland. A womanmight see that as deflecting from thespecific criticism instead of engagingwith it.
    • Phrases such as “in my condition,” “atmy age,” and “pal” create a personal,mocking tone that would likely feelparticularly inappropriate when aimed ata female medical professionaldiscussing patient safety.
    • The later response—calling herprofessional college a “pretentiouslynamed trade union”—reinforces theimpression that the author is unwilling toacknowledge her expertise.

    A sympathetic reading is that the writer wants to provide statistical context and argue that Scottish hospitals perform better than hospitals elsewhere in the UK. But the presentation weakens that argument. A woman might come away thinking: “This is less a serious rebuttal of corridor care than a politically motivated attempt to undermine a woman doctor who spoke publicly about a problem.”

    That would not be every woman’s reaction, but it is a predictable one, especially for women accustomed to seeing male experts treated as authoritative while female experts are questioned, renamed, or patronised.

    A woman’s impression of this article would likely vary significantly depending on her professional background, her political views on the NHS and the SNP, and her sensitivity to the author’s tone.

    Professional and Gender-Based Perspective A professional woman, particularly one in healthcare, might find the author’s phrasing regarding the A&E consultant problematic. The author uses the phrase “Mrs/Dr (?)” and writes, “Am I going to slag an A&E consultant? At my age? In my condition?” This framing, combined with the questioning of the doctor’s title, could be perceived as patronizing or dismissive of a woman’s professional status. This sentiment is echoed in the comments section, where readers explicitly defend the consultant, Dr. Jayne McLaren, emphasizing her expertise and the voluntary nature of her leadership roles in the Royal College of Emergency Medicine.

    Healthcare and Patient Perspective A woman concerned with patient safety or a caregiver might find the author’s use of “proxies” (like 12-hour waits) to minimize the reality of corridor care frustrating. While the author argues that corridor care is less common in Scotland than in Wales or England, a woman who has experienced the “undignified” and “unsafe” reality of being treated in a hallway might view the author’s statistical comparisons as an attempt to downplay a genuine crisis in patient dignity and care.

    Political and Regional Perspective Conversely, a woman who strongly supports the SNP or believes the Scottish NHS is unfairly targeted by the media might appreciate the author’s intent. She might see the article as a necessary “rebuttal” that provides essential context, arguing that while problems exist, they are significantly worse in other parts of the UK. From this viewpoint, the article serves as a defense of Scottish public services against what the author characterizes as “politics rather than facts.”

    General Tone Regardless of her stance on the facts, many women might be put off by the colloquial and aggressive tone (e.g., “No F Way, pal!”). The author’s dismissive attitude toward the Royal Colleges, calling them “pretentiously named trade unions,” may come across as overly cynical or argumentative rather than constructive.

    Like

    Reply

  5. ‘The title’s “Mrs/Dr (?)” makes thedoctor’s professional status seemuncertain or unimportant. Since she is aconsultant and a senior representativeof her medical college, that can look likedeliberate belittling rather than agenuine question.’

    AI doesn’t know about consultants and there pref for Mr over Dr. I genuinely did not mean to offend on that.

    Like

    Reply

  9. There are many female doctors. Complains were made they wanted to work part time. There are more female lawyers than males. They do not help abused women on legal aid. Mainly judges are men.

    Like

    Reply

  10. The article was excellent…only the flippant bits needed taken out…I just looked and listened and thought wow! someone still cares. ‘7% is a lot less than rUK but she’s gonna make it zero’ would have been great. Bring her back…or I’ll wear you down again! 😊 And thanks!

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment