Absolutely delusional comment on fake promises, definitely the lying corruption SNP party propaganda mouthpiece in full motion, NHS is crumbling before our eyes Police and fire services decimated SNP justice completely failing the Scottish people sturgeon appoints Swinney jumps, town centre lying empty and roads full potholes, Swinneys now the problem not the solution his weak leadership has allowed weak government after 19yrs SNP failure Scotland is broken

I am writing urgently ahead of the Stage 3 vote on the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill scheduled for Tuesday 17 March 2026. I ask you in the strongest terms either to support the outstanding safeguard and transition amendments, or, if those safeguards are not secured, to vote against the motion to pass the Bill. This is not an argument against proportionate regulation or patient safety. It is an objection to Parliament being asked to approve a framework that is still incomplete, still operationally uncertain, and still capable of causing severe and unnecessary damage to thousands of practitioners, most of them women running or working in small businesses, before any clear and workable route to lawful compliance has been properly put in place. The Bill is at Stage 3 and the motion to pass it, S6M-21100, has been lodged for debate on 17 March 2026. There are several serious reasons why this Bill should not pass in its present form. First, Parliament is being asked to approve offences and restrictions before the training and qualification framework is settled. The Bill, as amended, creates a system in which provision of procedures outside tightly defined permitted premises may become unlawful, yet the detailed training and qualification standards are not contained in the Bill itself and are left to future regulations. The Minister has already stated in Parliament that training and qualification standards are not in the Bill or in the current SSI and that further engagement would still be needed on those questions. That is plainly not an implementation-ready position. Second, the legislation itself shows that Government does not yet have the training route ready. The current framework allows Ministers up to three years after section 3 comes into force to lay draft training or qualification regulations, and if that is said not to be practicable they need only lay a report explaining why. It is unreasonable to expect practitioners and businesses to accept legislation now when the lawful route to compliance may not be properly defined for years. Third, the very existence of multiple late-stage amendments on transition, business support, guidance, consultation, enforcement readiness and commencement delay shows that the framework is still not settled. Where legislation still requires this level of last-minute repair, caution should prevail. Parliament should not criminalise first and organise later. Fourth, concerns about implementation capacity remain unresolved. In the Stage 1 debate, members referred to the committee’s concerns about lack of detail, the need for guidance and support, the need for a staged approach to enforcement, and the need for an implementation route map, including concerns regarding Healthcare Improvement Scotland capacity and resources. These are not minor loose ends. They go to the basic question of whether the system can function lawfully and fairly at all. Fifth, the business and equality consequences are serious. The Scottish Government’s own impact material accepts that women are especially affected because the sector is largely female-led and most service users are women. It also accepts that businesses and practitioners will face costs arising from the new regulatory system. Passing a Bill with such serious consequences before the transition, costs, and training pathways are properly settled is neither fair nor responsible. Sixth, rural and access issues remain obvious. Government material for island communities notes that there are only four HIS regulated clinics across island areas, two in Lerwick and two in Stornoway. That raises an immediate question as to whether this model will reduce access, distort the market, and push treatment activity elsewhere rather than improving safety in any meaningful way. Seventh, there are continuing concerns about whether the eventual structure will in practice favour a narrow part of the sector while excluding long-established independent practitioners without any clear and realistic transition route. The consultation process itself recorded the view from non-healthcare business owners that healthcare professionals had exercised undue influence over the proposals. Whether or not every aspect of that criticism is accepted, Parliament should not ignore the scale of that concern. A law of this significance should not proceed while so many of those directly affected believe that the system has been shaped without fair representation of their sector. Eighth, there is a wider concern that the practical effect of current policy, prescribing restrictions, and professional pressure within parts of the medical aesthetics sector is already making it harder for non-medical practitioners to continue trading. In those circumstances, Parliament should be especially careful not to create a back-door exclusionary model through legislation before it has properly tested impact, transition, training availability, cost, and legal workability. Public protection should not become a vehicle for disproportionate economic exclusion. Ninth, I am extremely concerned that this Bill is being advanced before there has been proper transparency as to the evidence base, stakeholder influence, sector-specific differentiation, and practical planning behind it. We have already sent well over 100 Freedom of Information requests to bodies including the DHSC and the Scottish Government because affected practitioners are still trying to establish who influenced this policy, what evidence was actually relied upon, and why those most affected were not properly reflected in the structure now being proposed. There is also a basic fairness issue here. Parliament should not pass a law that could place large numbers of women out of work, destabilise established small businesses, and create immediate uncertainty across the sector when training routes, qualification standards, implementation timescales, enforcement readiness, and business support are all still unresolved. If the Scottish Parliament wishes to regulate this area, it should do so properly. That means a lawful, evidence-based, proportionate system with clear transition arrangements, published training pathways, realistic commencement, proper consultation, full impact review, and workable routes for existing competent practitioners. That is not what is before Parliament at present. I therefore ask you to do the following. 1. Support amendments which delay commencement until the system is genuinely ready. 2. Support amendments requiring proper guidance, consultation, review of HIS capacity, and business support. 3. Oppose any attempt to force through a framework that creates offences before the route to compliance is available and affordable. 4. If these safeguards are not secured, vote against the motion to pass the Bill. Please also note that if this Bill proceeds in a form that is procedurally unfair, practically unworkable, or legally defective, affected practitioners will reserve all rights in relation to subsequent legal challenge, including challenge to implementation decisions, regulations, and any wider questions of competence or lawfulness arising after passage. I would be grateful if you would confirm urgently whether you will oppose passage of the Bill unless these safeguards are secured.

SNP GIVE AWAYS The priority for any elected government is to disperse the tax payer’s money in a way that benefits’ all. Bear in mind there no such thing as a freebee it might be free to you but the taxpayer has to foot the bill. The SNP have used so called free gifts not to benefit the minority but to win votes. Let us look at these free gifts from our benevolent leaders. First free hospital parking, for long term sick hospital patients all hospital had arrangements for free parking for their visitor. All monies raised from parking charges went to patient’s improvement funds. At my regional hospital the car park is full all the time and not with visitors some people use it as a park and ride. Two, free prescriptions, it goes without doubt that the majority of people can afford to pay and the money saved could be used to support frontline services. Three, bus passes for the young, this has resulted in a minority of youngsters using the passes to congregate and cause social problems. Unlike the senior citizen free travel if the SNP was to remove this concession most routes would have to shut through lack of travellers. Four, the baby boxes, i was brought up to think if you cannot afford to keep a child don't have one. Five, free university places, uni finances are in a very bad way which ultimately affects the students learning ability. Six, the travel concession for islanders, this scheme is one of their more sensible ones; the only thing is the ferry service is so unreliable that businesses and the general population are in a constant worry about their travel arrangements. Bear in mind the millions spent on the ferry overspend could have been used to give every hospital in Scotland £1 million towards upgrading their infrastructure. So next time you see or hear your SNP councillor or MSP spouting on about free this and free that THINK taxpayers money could it be used more sensibly?