Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are always grateful for the illumination that you bring to my amendments.

That is correct. Thank you for clarifying my own amendment. Yes, there is an “or” at the end of paragraph (c)(ii). I am trying to illustrate the significance of both of those requirements. To go back to John Mason’s quest for perfection earlier, we would all agree that it would be ideal if someone had all those qualifications, but we definitely want someone who has some experience of the regulatory environment relating to educational qualifications or some experience in public sector governance. You are absolutely right.

As I said, the issue is of profound significance, because one of the clearest criticisms that has been levelled at the SQA has been about the lack of transparency and accountability in its internal structure. In Professor Muir’s report, “Putting Learners at the Centre”, he made clear that a culture of defensiveness and lack of openness has been allowed to grow, leading to a perception of unaccountability and remoteness from the educational community. My amendment is an attempt to nail down that the chief executive would be someone who is very connected to, not remote from, the educational community.

Amendment 222 would build on that principle by ensuring that the chief executive

“demonstrates a commitment to the values of openness, transparency and accountability”.

I will unpack the amendment for the committee’s consideration. It would require qualifications Scotland to have

“clear and accessible ... decision-making”.

It would ensure

“that standards and assessments in relation to relevant qualifications are subject to appropriate scrutiny”,

and it would place in statute a requirement to engage with relevant and important viewpoints.

There would also be an obligation in law to

“publish data, reports and decisions in relation to the exercise of ... Qualifications Scotland’s functions”

and to

“respond appropriately to developments in ... education policy ... the needs of children, young people and other persons undertaking a relevant qualification”

and

“employers”.

Would it not simply be a case of taking the existing allocation of resources in Education Scotland and moving it to somewhere else? That is not an increase; it is a simple transfer of resources.

The risk is that we have a bill that is supposed to address those fundamental issues in the Scottish education system, but that we do nothing about them. The risk is that we have another two or three years, or however long it is, of further consideration of detail, which I think was the phrase that the cabinet secretary used earlier. The fact is that we have been discussing this, in one shape or form or another, almost continuously for years already, and the evidence clearly suggests that separation is required.

I am also not entirely sure about the issue of cost. To be absolutely clear, I come from the background of the private sector, but I am not sure that I accept the argument that you create lots more costs simply by taking one set of resources and moving them, in reporting and accountability terms, to another body. I am not sure that I understand why, in the public sector, that would automatically create a massive increase in costs. The costs are already allocated; you are simply moving them to a different place, where they will operate separately and independently of the original host. I do not understand that argument. I would be very happy to hear an explanation, which is perhaps more granular than the convener will be prepared to allow here.

I can see that the convener is happy for there to be a granular discussion. I am happy for there to be a granular explanation as to why we suddenly have this enormous expansion of costs. As I said, I come at the issue from a different background of working in the private sector, where, if you decide to reallocate resources, it does not increase the resources; in fact, you are very strongly controlled in relation to not increasing the resources—you simply reallocate them. I do not understand what the granular argument for the increase in costs is.

I am willing to give way; I always give way to the cabinet secretary when she wishes to intervene.

Of course. I always give way to the cabinet secretary.

I am glad that Angus Robertson qualified his caricature of the previous UK Government, because on the whole, working relationships between ministers and officials was on par with what it is now. [Interruption.] Are you denying that?

I am going on the evidence that was presented to the committee. I am going on the words of businessmen—businesspeople—business organisations and companies, which actually want the legal certainty that UKIMA gives them. Let me take the Scottish Retail Consortium as an example. It has talked about how

“Scottish Consumers benefit enormously from open and frictionless trade within the United Kingdom”.

There is NFU Scotland, which describes England as by far the most important market for Scottish agriculture and has stressed the importance of having certainty and legal underpinnings for that marketplace. The Confederation of British Industry Scotland said that

“the UK internal market underpins economic growth and investment stability.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 27 March 2025; c 13.]

None of those witnesses advocated for the repeal of UKIMA.

I will not try to pretend that UKIMA is the perfect piece of legislation, nor am I someone who does not think that there is vast room for improvement in the way that Governments work together on our little island. However, I have to say that the evidence that we have had as a committee is not as dogmatic or as unilateral as your document is. Are you not just speaking for nationalism when you say that you are sticking up for one thing or another, instead of sticking up for Scottish businesses and Scottish jobs?

Well, that is—

Oh, I cannot continue?

Cabinet secretary, you spoke about good will. Having received the document last night and listened to you this morning, I find your position incredibly dogmatic. There is absolutely no compromise—it is dogmatic; it is straight down the line. That is not good will on your part, is it? It is bullying—it is about what you want and your insistence that you must have it.

Your position is inconsistent with the evidence that this committee has received. Your grandiose, extraordinary claim is that the internal market act is the greatest threat to devolution that has ever existed, but you are using it simply as the latest weapon in your constitutional warfare with the United Kingdom.

In this committee, we have heard business leaders, farmers and legal experts testify that the act brings stability, legal certainty and confidence for investment.

I ask you outright—is the Scottish Government’s opposition to UKIMA really about the outcomes, or is it all about posturing and optics?