Unlicensed XL bully dogs to be banned in Scotland, Scottish government confirms
Unlicensed XL bully dogs will be banned in Scotland, the Scottish government has announced.
Humza Yousaf initially confirmed the move during First Minister’s Questions on Thursday, saying the decision would “in essence, replicate” UK legislation after the country saw an influx of dogs being rehomed north of the border.
Holyrood later confirmed the legislation would mirror the UK government’s – with the tight safeguards making it a criminal offence to own the breed without an exemption certificate.
The move follows new regulations that have come into force in England and Wales after a spate of attacks in which people have died or been injured by the breed.
Mr Yousaf said: “We recognise that the vast majority of dog owners are responsible animal lovers.
“However, now that we know the full implications for Scotland of the UK government’s measures, we are urgently bringing forward new safeguards on XL bully dogs.
“It is essential Scotland is not adversely impacted because of any loopholes created as a consequence of the introduction of the UK government’s policy in England and Wales.
“Recent reports of XL bully dogs being moved to Scotland from south of the border are concerning and it’s important we do not become a dumping ground for the breed, leading to unacceptable risks to public safety and animal welfare.
“We will be working at pace to bring forward necessary regulations to mirror the system introduced in England and Wales as soon as possible.
“We will continue to engage with key stakeholders going forward and to offer practical support to help owners comply with these new safeguards.”
Community safety minister Siobhian Brown had earlier warned Scots not to buy XL bully dogs “at the present time”.
The MSP issued the advice after claiming the UK government’s policy had led to an “influx of XL bully dogs coming to Scotland”.
Read more:
New rules come into force
How experts predict ban will change things
What are the rules?
XL bullies were added to the Dangerous Dogs Act on 31 October 2023, giving owners in England and Wales two months to prepare for the restrictions.
The dogs must be kept on a lead and muzzled when out in public.
Selling, breeding, abandoning or giving them away is also now illegal.
Those in England and Wales have until 31 January to apply for an exemption certificate to keep their dog – and must have it neutered, microchipped and insured.
Owners who fail to obtain an exemption by then will have to euthanise their dog or face a possible criminal record and fine.
Soprano the XL bully dog. Pic: Lauren Ballantyne
‘You should be standing by your dog’
XL bully owner Lauren Ballantyne, from Fife, said responsible owners shouldn’t have an issue complying with the replicated regulations.
The mum-of-two, who has a 21-week-old pup called Soprano, told Sky News: “If you had the money to buy the dog in the first place, you should be sticking by your dog.
“And if it takes for you to have to neuter it, muzzle it and microchip it, if you are a responsible owner that’s what you should be doing.
“You should be standing by your dog, not giving it away or rehoming it. It’s as simple as that.”
Soprano enjoying a nap. Pic: Lauren Ballantyne
Ms Ballantyne, who is attempting to get over a fear of dogs, said Soprano will begin muzzle training this weekend.
She added: “I don’t think a ban is the answer. It’s down to the dog owners.”
‘Any breed can be potentially dangerous in the wrong hands’
The Scottish SPCA earlier told Sky News it had not seen an increase in the number of XL bully dogs being brought to its centres since the restrictions across the border started.
The animal welfare charity said it will comply with the Scottish government’s decision but remains opposed to a ban on dog breeds.
Instead, the Scottish SPCA believes the answer lies in targeting irresponsible ownership and low-welfare breeding practices as “any breed of dog can be potentially out of control and dangerous in the wrong hands”.
A spokesperson for the charity added: “We urge the Scottish government to ensure that any legislation is introduced with a sufficient transition period, to ensure that owners have the time and support needed to be able to exempt their dogs.
“We also call on the Scottish government to ensure that the teams responsible for enforcing this law have the resources and training they need before the ban begins, to ensure that no more dogs than absolutely necessary become caught up in this.”
After nearly a year of legal proceedings, a South Korean court acquitted former Wemade CEO Jang Hyun-guk of market manipulation charges.
Are Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules quite as iron clad as she insists?
How tough is her armour really? And is there actually scope for some change, some loosening to avoid big tax hikes in the autumn?
We’ve had a bit of clarity early this morning – and that’s a question we discuss on the Politics at Sam and Anne’s podcast today.
Politics Live: Reeves to reform financial regulations
And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.
You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.
For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.
And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.
But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.
And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.
There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.
And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.
It’s outlined in paragraph 3.6 on page four of the Charter for Budget Responsibility.
This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.
In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.
A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA
Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.
But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.
This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.
But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?
The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.
But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?
Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?
And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?
I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.
And this morning, they issued one.
A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”
So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?
Read more:
Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn
Tough decisions ahead for chancellor
The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.
But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?
I’m still unsure that change has been ruled out.
The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike