Qualifications Scotland (SQA) Higher English Past Papers 2026

Reading for Understanding, Analysis and Evaluation (RUAE)

Duration: 1 hour 30 minutes

Critical Reading

Duration: 1 hour 30 minutes (extended to 1 hour 45 minutes from session 2025–26)

Writing folio

Duration: Coursework (first draft in class, up to 4 hours, may span sessions)

Analysing how word choice achieves its effect — beyond stating the meaning of a word

All three Course Reports specifically warn that candidates who quote a word and state what it means, without exploring the connotations or linking to the question's focus, gain no marks at Higher. The consistent advice across 2023, 2024, and 2025 is to focus on one word and explore its connotations rather than quoting longer expressions. Many candidates who chose imagery or sentence structure avoided this error; those who chose word choice were more likely to make generalised comments.

Question Paper 1 (RUAE)

Answering the comparison question in Paper 1 — identifying three distinct shared ideas and evidencing both passages

The 2023 report noted that most candidates identified only one or two key ideas, with many but not most identifying three. In 2024 and 2025, performance improved but difficulty with this question persisted for weaker candidates. The challenge lies in identifying genuinely distinct agreements — not restating the same point in different words — and locating textual evidence from both passages for each.

Question Paper 1 (RUAE)

Scottish text 10-mark commonality question — addressing the specific technique or focus in the question

Every year from 2023 to 2025, specific examples of candidates who identified the theme but ignored the technique (or vice versa) were cited. In 2023, Duffy candidates identified examples of loss but did not comment on its impact. In 2024, MacCaig candidates identified challenging situations but did not link to central concerns. In 2025, Duffy candidates commented on central concerns without referring to symbolism or imagery.

Question Paper 2 (Critical Reading)

Critical essay introduction quality — establishing a direct line of argument from the first paragraph

The 2024 and 2025 reports highlighted that candidates who performed well demonstrated the ability to construct a relevant response from the outset, using a line of argument that was a direct response to the question. Essays that opened with biographical background, general plot summary, or a generic introduction before arriving at the argument consistently scored below their potential.

Question Paper 2 (Critical Reading)

Sustaining a line of argument across the full critical essay without drifting into narrative retelling

Retelling the narrative or describing characters in a basic way — rather than analysing — was flagged as a recurring issue in all three years. The 2025 report added the specific sub-problem of candidates producing 'a more generic, possibly pre-prepared essay' that lacked relevance to the specific question chosen. The ability to adapt knowledge to any valid question rather than fitting a prepared essay to the question was consistently rewarded.

Question Paper 2 (Critical Reading)

Embedding textual evidence to support a line of argument rather than structuring the essay around quotations

Specifically identified in 2024 and 2025 as a distinct structural failure pattern: essays built around a sequence of quotations tended to lack structural coherence and did not demonstrate breadth of knowledge. The reports explicitly stated that quotations are not required in the 'elsewhere' section, and that learning a series of quotations to fit to the question is not beneficial.

Question Paper 2 (Critical Reading)

Register and quality of writing in the portfolio — sustained craft rather than competent correctness

The 2024 report noted that poetry which 'reads like standard sentences broken up into lines' does not gain high marks, and that poems are assessed for language and literary techniques. The 2023 and 2025 reports noted that imaginative writing focused on complicated and unrealistic narratives rather than character development and atmosphere consistently failed to reach the higher bands, regardless of technical accuracy.

Portfolio

Evaluating tone and persuasion in RUAE — challenging higher-mark questions

In each year, questions asking candidates to analyse tone (disbelief in 2023; forceful tone in 2024) were identified as demanding. In 2023, the question on tone of disbelief was found challenging and fewer candidates gained full marks. In 2024, the question on forceful tone was specifically flagged. Candidates who successfully handled these questions chose specific language features and explained how the specific word, image, or structure conveyed the tone — not merely asserted it.

Question Paper 1 (RUAE)