Scotland Said No To The Nordic Model

Yesterday, the 3rd of February 2026, I travelled from Glasgow to Edinburgh with some fellow Scotland For Decrim activists to go to the Scottish Parliament and watch the debate and vote on Ash Regan’s Bill in person.

The day started off stressful, as there had been a change to the debate time later in the evening the day before, to around 4 pm, and then the time of the debate was brought forward to around 3:20 pm as we were on the train to Edinburgh. Luckily, we had gotten an earlier train than necessary anyway and made it with plenty of time. But the constant shifting of times had the entire group frazzled before we’d even gotten to Parliament.

This follows on from the date of the debate and vote having changed several times as well.

As we arrive, some members of the group split off to do interviews with ITV and BBC, whilst the rest of us wait for others to arrive before heading in.

Going through security was not as intense as I’d been worried about. The lack of information on which items we weren’t allowed to bring in was really annoying, but we didn’t have any issues, so all's well that ends well.

Once we’d all collected our visitors' passes, I checked when the debate was scheduled with a helpful receptionist. Based on the schedule he had available to him, it was starting in 5 minutes. So I gathered everyone who was ready, and we scrambled up two flights of awkward (but very interesting architecture) stairs to get to the debate chamber.

As we were entering, we were asked to make sure our phones were on silent or aeroplane mode, told that we weren’t allowed to clap/cheer/yell/try to participate, and that no food or drink was allowed in the chamber (we could step out to have a drink of water if we needed to) and that we weren’t allowed to take any photos or videos. So in we went. Getting split up into whichever empty seats were available and having to sit as quietly as we could.

It turned out that the Parliament were running behind and that we’d arrived at the tail end of the debate on trans prisoners and prisons. The transphobia was a horrible thing to have to listen to as we were settling in and trying to emotionally prepare. There were a few other topics discussed, but I’d be lying if I said I remember much about them. Something about war memorials and child rights to school placements, I think.

Image taken from here

Then it was onto Ash Regan’s Bill (20627).

You don’t have to take my experience at face value; this link will take you to the transcript of the debate. Please be aware that there is a lot of upsetting content and language in this debate. Especially from Michelle Thomson, later in the debate.

Read It Here

Watch It Here

Regan started things off by talking about the Epstein files, which, obviously, is a horrible thing, but is entirely unrelated to Sex Work. She went on to talk about trafficking and pimps and “wee lassies” being coerced into prostitution - all of which is bad. However, all of that is already illegal. Trafficking is illegal. Coercing someone to perform sexual acts is illegal. People under 18 can’t consent and aren’t Sex Workers; that is child sexual abuse, which is already illegal. She also kept coming back to her core idea that the reason for prostitution (I hate using the term, but it’s her language) existence was demand from sex buyers/men.

At no point in her opening speech did she mention poverty as a driving force for why people go into Sex Work. Which is widely acknowledged by Sex Workers, Workers’ Rights Groups, charities, and so many others as one of the main reasons that most people will enter into Sex Work.

Another thing that Ash Regan brought up was that “UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has stated plainly that prostitution: “constitutes torture, inhuman and degrading treatment”. This quote caught me completely off guard and is something I’d love to look into the context of, but frankly, I don’t have the time or capacity to do so.

At one point, she said that people were choosing to ignore international evidence and that they were lazy for doing so, and yet she seems to be ignoring all of the international evidence in favour of Decrim? That in particular felt very hypocritical. Her opening speech was very emotive, and her language was inflammatory. It made having to sit down quietly and not react very difficult.

What added to that difficulty over the course of the debate and vote was the presence of three or four women who were clearly in support of Regan’s Bill, who happened to be sitting in the row directly in front of me and a few others. Their constant quiet chattering to each other, obvious tweeting and at several points, bouts of full-on laughter had my fellow Decrim supporters and me on edge and upset. The stewards who were responsible for ensuring that everyone watching the debate followed the rules seemed to think they weren’t enough of a disturbance and left them be, but I really wish they had at least said something when they started laughing.

Regan and several other speakers throughout the debate complained about the lack of time allocated to the debate and to each speaker. It was very clear that lots of people had plenty to say, and almost every speaker went over the time they had been allocated. There were so many interruptions, people yelling or clapping or essentially heckling. It was like watching a room of children at points - all whilst we had to sit quietly, not react, not yell out, and some of our members had to step out at several points due to being so overwhelmed with emotions that they were being brought to tears.

I think the debate could have used more time, but only because it felt like we only really got to hear from people who were in support of the Bill. Maybe 20% of the time was given to people who were actively speaking against the Bill. I think it would have been much better for Parliament and the general public to have heard a more balanced debate.

Screenshot from Parliament TV

Ash Regan, in response to the Criminal Justice Committee Speaker (Audrey Nicoll) and the Minister for Victims and Community Safety (Siobhian Brown) voicing the concerns raised by people with lived experience, asked why the committee had met with groups like Decrim For Scotland and not people with lived experience who supported her Bill:

“lack of comparativeness between those who advance the argument that they do not agree with the bill and say that they have lived experience, and survivors with lived experience. Can the minister explain why she met lobby groups and people who said that they did not agree with the bill, but she refused to meet the survivors, who could have told her about the real reality of prostitution?” - Ash Regan

I have two problems with this.

First of all, her language implies that Scotland For Decrim & others who are against the Bill are lying about having lived experience, furthered by her claiming that those in support of her Bill were the ones who could tell the “real reality”; she is once again reinforcing the idea that those of us who spoke up against her Bill were lying. This isn’t new. Ash Regan has constantly attacked Scotland for Decrim. Calling the group the “Pimp Lobby”, attacking individual members and overall just disregarding or belittling the people involved in the group's activities. As an active Sex Worker, who has taken time out of my life when I should have been trying to work and earn money to go and flyer with Scotland for Decrim, attend their protests and make social media content on my own socials to try to help draw more attention to the work being done by Scotland for Decrim I am deeply offended by Ash Regan’s dismissal and outright bullying of people like myself who have sacrificed time, energy, resources and sometimes earnings to support Scotland for Decrim in standing against her Bill.

Secondly, she seems to be missing information or deliberately misleading the debate by saying the committee did not attempt to contact those with lived experience who supported Regan’s Bill. Whereas we found out later in the debate that the main reason the people with lived experience in support of Ash Regan’s Bill were not met with directly is that the committee was strongly advised against it:

“On the point about evidence from the Women’s Support Project, I note that it was our aspiration for all engagement to be trauma-informed and, on that particular issue, we were advised strongly not to engage directly with lived-experience witnesses.” - Audrey Nicoll

So the committee did their best to be considerate and trauma-informed, and yet that makes them biased or in some way bad? That doesn’t seem fair to me.

Personally, I can’t help but think that if Scotland for Decrim and individual Sex Workers were able to email, call or meet with MSPs on their own, then surely those in support of the Bill would have had those same options available to them? We all had to brave potentially outing ourselves if we shared our lived experience, we risked public harassment from visibly supporting Scotland for Decrim (some of which came directly from Ash Regan), and we had to listen as Regan and her supporters continued to use graphic or degrading language as they discussed the community we were all working to support. Seemingly Regan and her supporters had little care for the trauma they were inflicting on all of us.

Screenshots from Parliament TV featuring Audrey Nicoll

The actual debate was at least an hour long, and this is already a very long blog, so I won’t cover it point by point. I’ll try to highlight the moments that had the greatest impact on me personally and leave you to watch or read the full debate if you so choose.

One of my biggest frustrations from the debate was the constant reminder and reinforcement of the Govt’s definition that prostitution/sex work is violence against women and girls. It was said by multiple speakers throughout the debate, and it is the official stance of the Scottish Govt and I hate that.

I hate the inflexibility and lack of nuance. I hate the immediate victimising and removal of agency. I’m not a victim to be talked about and to have my choice of work disregarded as me being a helpless victim who has somehow been coerced by dangerous men who only want to abuse me.

And if I am to be called a victim, why am I not allowed to tell the Govt what I want and need? Why must I go through their organisations that only see sex work as violence against women and girls? Why is the only govt support gatekept behind needing to be a victim? If I go to the Women’s Support Project or Routes Out and say I’m a Sex Worker looking to exit sex work, why do I have to be labelled as a victim? Why do I have to agree to that definition to get access to support?

Whereas I can go to NUM, SWARM, ECP, and other Sex Worker led non goverment funded organisations and receive whatever support they can give without ever needing to label myself as anything other than a Sex Worker.

One speaker during the debate gave me hope and helped to make the entire ordeal worth sitting through. Maggie Chapman (Green Party) genuinely seemed to have listened to what Sex Workers had been saying. She talked about our concerns around our ability to screen clients if they are criminalised, she talked about the evidence from Amnesty International, and she dealt with the (frankly ridiculous) question from Ruth Maguire without losing her composure.

“If prostitution is work like any other work, should we be offering it as work experience for young people? Should folk who are jobseekers have their benefits taken away if they refuse to do it?” - Ruth Maguire

“It is a different kind of work. Lots of types of work are not offered for work experience, to use the example that the member gives.” - Maggie Chapman

This is a tactic that is often used by people opposing the full decriminalisation of sex work. They’ll ask something along the lines of - “If sex work is work, should it be offered as an option at career events/school leavers/job seekers? Should children be taught about it in schools?” etc. This always frustrates me. It’s such a disingenuous argument. No one on the decrim side has ever suggested that sex work should be put forward as an option for school leavers or similar. It’s so difficult to engage with this sincerely because it’s just ridiculous.

We aren’t asking for decrim so that more people can enter sex work; we want decrim so that people already involved in sex work can be safer. We want to tackle the problems that push people into sex work: poverty, lack of support for dealing with addiction or substance abuse, and allow people who want to move on from sex work to do so with as much support as possible.

And personally, I think sex work should be something that we educate people on in school. It should be done in an age-appropriate way, of course, but if people understand what it is, they can make informed choices and better interact with the sex industry when they enter adulthood. Education is a key element of harm reduction strategies.

Moving on.

Another positive moment during the debate was hearing from Alex Cole-Hamilton (Lib Dems) as he explained that the Lib Dems support full decriminalisation, he acknowledged that sex work can’t be “wished away” and referred to improved relations between public authorities and sex workers in countries that had decriminalised sex work.

It was so nice to see the Lib Dems and Green parties actively supporting and speaking up for decriminalisation.

But the overwhelming negativity, graphic language and specific quotes were so traumatic to have to sit through and seemed only to add a shock/rage factor.

Content Warning: The next section has mentions of rape

During Michelle Thomson’s time speaking, many of our group had to excuse themselves as her speech was so graphic and just genuinely horrendous. It’s been what stuck with me most from the entire debate. I’ll share a very small snippet here, but please be warned, this is a small part of a very hard-to-hear/read section that does a great injustice to sex workers.

“I accord respect to the women who are in the gallery today. The life that they live is thus. They are systematically raped, vaginally, anally and orally, multiple times a day.” - Michelle Thomson

She went on to repeat the notion that all sex workers are being raped by their clients and went into detail about what she believes to be the reality of day to day existence of sex workers. Her intense and vivid language seems to contradict her respect for the victims who were present to show their support for Regan’s Bill. Surely, if you respect someone and care for the trauma they have been through, you don’t speak about it in such a vile and shocking way so as to bring people with lived experience to tears and have to step out of the room?

I sat through her full speech. Focussing on square breathing, sitting still and trying my best to minimise my reactions so as not to cause a scene and be asked to leave.

The next speaker - Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) - is known to many Sex Workers as someone who has outed many Sex Workers in the past. She went on to talk about clients using a review site and saying horrible things about Sex Workers. She also echoed that the root cause was demand. Having to hear her talk about protecting women when I was sitting in a group that featured at least one woman she had directly put in harm's way was not easy.

Screenshot from Parliament TV featuring Michelle Thomson

But I’ll aim to end this blog on a lighter and happier note.

As put so well by Maggie Chapman, “Criminalisation is not a gift of protection. It is a threat to the rights of working people.”, despite the emotive/shock value language used throughout the debate, rationality seems to have won the day. Ash Regan’s Bill was not successful.

The results: 54 votes For and 64 Against, 0 Abstained and 11 Didn’t Vote.

You can find more information about the votes HERE.

So, for now, we remain safe from a Nordic Model-style legislation and that has been such a relief. Many people from our group went out for celebratory drinks afterwards, people cried with joy and relief that it was finally over, and after finally getting food and on the train home, I let myself relax.

This won’t be the last time we have to deal with something like this.

As long as the Scottish Government continues to define sex work as being violence against women and girls and fails to introduce full decriminalisation of sex work, we will always have more work to do. But we will do it. We will not sit by and let people like Ash Regan talk over us and tell us that we don’t know what’s best for us.

Sex Workers in Scotland - and around the world - are more than capable of speaking for themselves. We just need the people in power to listen.

If you’d like to stay informed on things that impact Sex Workers in Scotland, be sure to check out Scotland for Decrim.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I know it’s long. But getting to write this has been a great way for me to process everything that happened and will hopefully provide some insight into how these Bills and debates impact active Sex Workers.

Alice x