Nick Stace of Which? (Letters, August 10) says I have made "unfounded and inaccurate criticisms" of his organisation. He says so in temperate language which is in stark contrast to his "not for publication" heavy-handed letter to me.
Why did I say the Scottish legal profession super-complaint was reckless? Because neither Which? nor the OFT has produced any empirical evidence or research which shows significant harm to consumers in respect of the legal services market in Scotland. It's not just me who says this: both the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland have made this point. So I say to Mr Stace, show us your evidence. The independence of Scotland's legal profession survived the 1707 Acts of Union, so it can survive attempts by London-based bodies to impose English law solutions on Scotland.
Why entrust ownership of solicitor and advocates practices to banks and supermarkets? Multinationals have been scamming the British public for years. The Financial Services Authority has ample evidence of this. And the European Commission has repeatedly found UK banks and supermarkets to be engaged in major anti-competitive practices. By implication, Which? regards legal services as a tin of beans to be stacked, traded and sold. But duties to the court and professional ethics are not commodities.
Finally, Mr Stace claims Which? is the largest consumer organisation in Europe. That claim lacks credibility as it is based on Which? counting people who buy its magazine. Which? has 10,500 members who have a say in the running of their organisation, not 650,000. Using the "associate membership" criteria of Which?, one could argue that the largest consumer movement in Europe was viewers of Coronation Street. The Street has 10 million "associate members" so perhaps they should be consulted?
Mike Dailly, Principal Solicitor, Govan Law Centre.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article