Files and Instructions

cosmetologist-talking-to-client-2025-02-11-13-54-10-utc

Help Stop Unfair Aesthetic Regulation in Scotland

Submit Your Views by 14 July 2025

What’s Happening?

The Scottish Government is proposing new laws that would severely restrict who can offer non-surgical cosmetic treatments such as fillers and Botox.
These proposals are heavily influenced by lobbying organisations and, if implemented, could:

  • Ban experienced independent practitioners from providing treatments.
  • Limit services to medical-only clinics
  • Cause prices to double or triple
  • Force clients to attend overly clinical settings and be labelled as “patients”
  • Shut down hundreds of small, mainly female-led businesses
  • Even the government has acknowledged in its own papers that parts of the plan may be unenforceable and discriminatory. Yet they are proceeding anyway.

How to Respond (Takes Under 10 Minutes)

  1. Click the button below to open the consultation
  2. Scroll to the bottom of the page until you see the box below
  3. Click “Begin consultation” and complete the short question
Submit Your View

Suggested Wording (Optional)

If you’re not sure what to say, here are some ideas you can copy or adapt:

I’ve been seeing my trusted aesthetic practitioner for years and don’t want to lose access. These proposals are unfair to skilled, independent professionals. I want treatments to remain affordable, accessible, and client-focused.

Sign the petition

✍ Sign the Petition – Stop the Aesthetic Industry Monopoly

Support the Campaign

We are an independent advocacy group and rely on public support. If you’d like to help cover legal advice, outreach, and campaign resources, please consider donating:

Donate to Support

Read the Full Evidence

We have gathered all the key documents, minutes, and supporting evidence in one place. You can view it here:

View the Evidence Folder

Final Reminder

🗓 The consultation closes on Sunday 14 July 2025.
Your voice matters. Please act now.

What You Can Say as a Member of the Public?

  • I’ve been seeing my current practitioner for years and don’t want to be forced to find someone new.
  • I trust the person who treats me and feel completely safe in their care.
  • I do not want to be labelled a “patient” or treated in a medical setting for a voluntary cosmetic service.
  • These changes would make my treatments unaffordable and harder to access.
  • Independent practitioners often offer better continuity, time, and care than clinics.
  • I should be able to choose who I go to for cosmetic treatments, not have it decided for me.
  • Regulation should focus on standards and safety, not who holds a specific professional title.
  • This proposal feels like it’s protecting commercial interests, not the public.
  • Restricting who can practise will create unnecessary waiting lists and travel times.
  • Many of these practitioners are highly experienced – I would rather see them than someone newly qualified in a clinic.
  • My practitioner runs a small business and provides a personal service – I don’t want that replaced with a corporate chain.
  • The proposed model would reduce my choices and push prices up beyond what I can afford.
  • I have never had a bad experience with my practitioner, and I don’t want them to be forced out.
  • If someone is skilled, insured, and well-reviewed, that should be enough – not just their title.
  • Treatments like filler are not the same as medical treatment – I should not be pushed into a clinical process.
  • Independent businesses are the backbone of local communities – they should be supported, not eliminated.
  • I’ve had better care and results with my current practitioner than I have in NHS or private medical settings.
  • It would be discriminatory to ban people from working based on their background or title rather than their actual skill and experience.
  • My practitioner is honest, professional, and follows all the right safety protocols – there’s no reason they should be excluded.
  • The government should be working with experienced professionals across the sector, not shutting them down.

What You Can Do as an Independent Aesthetic Practitioner?

Here are some suggestions of what may affect you to include:

  • I have built trusted relationships with my clients over many years, and they rely on me for consistent, safe care.
  • I’ve invested heavily in my business – including leasehold premises, insurance, and equipment – and this proposal threatens to make all of that worthless.
  • I am located in a rural area with no access to a HIS-approved premises – this policy would completely cut me off from working.
  • My business is my only source of income. If these proposals go ahead, I will face bankruptcy and potentially lose my home.
  • I meet all current safety standards, follow all appropriate protocols, and have never had a complaint or complication – yet I am being excluded based on title, not conduct.
  • I work longer hours than many in the medical field and often offer out-of-hours care to support my clients.
  • I trained extensively in aesthetics, have built a loyal client base, and have always put safety first – yet my experience is being ignored.
  • I rent or lease expensive equipment, and I won’t be able to recoup those costs if I’m forced to stop practising.
  • These proposals ignore the fact that thousands of independent practitioners are already working safely and successfully.
  • I have spent years developing my skills and business. This would erase that overnight.
  • My mental health is already suffering from the uncertainty and stress caused by these proposals.
  • The suggestion that I am unsafe simply because I’m not on a medical register is offensive and unfounded.
  • Many of my clients have followed me for years – they will be forced to seek unfamiliar and more expensive providers.
  • The regulation as proposed is disproportionately harsh on women and small business owners.
  • I already pay for regular training, insurance, and emergency protocols – I follow best practice and have evidence to prove it.
  • There is no justification for pushing independent professionals out when the system could support a fair licensing model instead.
  • I do not want to work in a clinical or medicalised setting – I built a comfortable, discreet environment that my clients appreciate.
  • If you remove experienced practitioners, you will damage public access and overload the remaining services.
  • I already work under a prescriber and follow current rules. I do not need further restrictions that have no evidence base.
  • I want to be regulated fairly, based on standards and competence – not excluded for political or commercial reasons.