XL bully dogs and Scotland

[CoatOfArms]

Another blinder by our "wonderful" government. I was not aware that the ban on these awful chav beast dogs only applied in England and Wales. No legislation to ban/restrict them in Scotland.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67787667

Some dim woman who runs a "bullie rescue" says she has been "inundated". Isn't that just marvellous.

I’m shortening my odds on the SNP panic-about-turn.

Just have to wait til their embarrassment at U-turning is exceeded by their fear of someone being very publicly killed or injured.

It took the Tories and a court case to persuade them that dangerous men do pose as women as a result of their bill to gain access to spaces they shouldn’t be in, so I don’t see a u-turn anytime soon sadly ☹️ Hope I’m wrong though and they use some common sense for once.

Maybe all the XLs will start identifying as poodles and they will be fully supported by the greens and snp... #transpoodlesAREpoodles

😂 Yeah, and the owners/rescuers will start identifying as people who have more than a total of 2 brain cells #bekind #xlbullyrightsaredogrights

Don't anyone suggest putting an XL Bully in pink leggings, for god's sake.

Don't anyone suggest putting an XL Bully in pink leggings, for god's sake.

And definitely not with a blond bob wig.

The kind of bully that’s ‘at it’?

Can still maul a small dog, cat or child while wearing a Tutu.. but the flower crown might come off.

'At it'.

😂😂😂

At it..

You guys crack me up 😂😂😂

That’s definitely a cockapoo @ArabellaScott - don’t know why anyone would think otherwise really 🤷‍♀️

The U turn cometh.

God bless them, it must be so confusing being in government when you’re this dim.

The usual few weeks lag behind England just gotta be different.

And I would stake my house on the fact there will be some anomaly or loophole between the Scottish and English legislation.

As well as a lot of rhetoric about how it’s all Englands fault for forcing them into this by adopting “hasty” legislation without sufficient consultation etc.

Right, well, they got there in the end. Why be proactive when you can embarrass yourselves first, eh?

they're already saying its because of the westminister policy they have to do this. Nothing to do with them dragging their heels, oh no.

It’s just terrible politics, even if you grant them the benefit of the doubt (which I don’t) on it being genuinely an attempt to do evidence based policy.

• polling evidence shows English ban is well supported.
• Not following suit creates an obvious perverse incentive for aficionados of the breed and/or the deranged.
• the Sturgeon tactic of do the thing England does just a bit later or different and in a Scots accent is beyond tired by now, its paper thin.

Salmond would have kicked this so far into touch at first sight. The man had a brain for politics that his successors don’t, thankfully. These guys are drawn to potholes.

Liked the Scots accent quip... So very true. 😁

“It is feared owners are making use of a legal “loophole”, allowing them to rehome their XL bullies in another country such as Scotland without fear of prosecution”

according to that article. In other news, it seems bears do actually shit in the woods. Is there a shared Greens/SNP brain cell that they take in turns to have each day?

Agree that this ban (or whatever they decide to bring in) will be different from the one in England just because.

From a Times article:
But an SNP move to ban the breed may split the party. A motion tabled by eight SNP MSPs on Monday, titled “banning XL bully dogs is not the answer”, argued that a ban “risks repeating the mistakes of the past” and is not supported by animal welfare organisations.

What "mistakes of the past" are the eight SNP MSPs alluding to?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3407ffeb-b494-4db8-b6ea-cf3c27fb4095?shareToken=1f703cf8faee8673557d728745ef2fed

'Humza Yousaf, the first minister, said on Friday that a ban was not “required”, arguing that Scotland already had a “very controlled and quite tight regime”.'

...

'Jenny Marra, a former Labour MSP who chaired a parliamentary inquiry into existing Holyrood legislation on dog controls in 2019, said that the present system, introduced in 2010, was not fit for purpose. Marra argued that the first minister’s claim of a “very controlled” regime “couldn’t be further from the truth”. She said: “Like a lot of the laws that go through Holyrood, it is based on guidelines and best practice. To all intents and purposes it’s largely ignored.”

Marra’s committee noted that unlike in England there is no system in place to quantify the number of injuries caused by dogs. It also raised concerns about the “reasonable apprehension” policy, dubbed the “one free bite rule” due to its suggestion that officials should only confiscate a dog once there is a proven pattern of behaviour.

Marra said: “It means they can attack and then go on to attack again. If you’ve got a dog like an XL bully, one attack is going to be fatal. If a dog like that goes for a child, there’s no chance.”'

The motion:

https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/votes-and-motions/S6M-11778

'That the Parliament recognises what it sees as the urgent need to protect the public from dangerous dogs, including in the Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale constituency, following reports of recent serious attacks; notes that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 introduced breed-specific legislation, which, it believes, has failed in preventing dog attacks; commends the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which places responsibility on the owner, not the dog; notes the view that legislation is needed to promote responsible dog ownership, tackle bad breeding practices, improve animal welfare and protect public safety; considers, with concern, that the UK Government has rushed into banning a poorly-defined breed type; understands that the ban is not supported by animal welfare organisations; believes that it ignores the potential for unintended consequences and risks repeating the mistakes of the past, and notes reports that the Scottish Government is consulting to ensure that current or proposed legislation is fit for purpose in safeguarding public safety around dogs.

Supported by: Kenneth Gibson, Emma Harper (Registered interest) , Bill Kidd, Fulton MacGregor, John Mason, Stuart McMillan, Audrey Nicoll, Kevin Stewart, David Torrance'