An analysis of the fairness of 2026 Higher Maths Paper 1

Background

Shortly after the Higher Maths examinations on Thursday 07 May 2026, an online petition was published, claiming that the non-calculator Paper 1 had been "unfair", "poorly worded", "inconsistently structured", and "out of step with every previous paper students had used to prepare".

The petition quickly gained several thousand signatures, and on Monday 11 May, a BBC News article gave further voice to the claims. This was quickly followed up by The Daily Mail .

On Tuesday 12 May, further articles appeared in The Scotsman , The Scottish Sun and on BBC News .

At time of writing, on Tuesday 12 May 2026, the petition evidently has close to 14000 signatures.

The petition's claims

The petition states:

"This is not a complaint that the paper was too hard. Students expect to be challenged. The problem is that the 2026 Higher Maths Paper 1 used language and phrasing that was confusing, ambiguous, and inconsistent with every past paper students had revised from. Questions were not simply difficult — they were worded in ways that made it genuinely unclear what was being asked.

"Past SQA Higher Maths papers have followed a recognisable style: clear command words, standard notation, and questions that test understanding rather than the ability to decode unusual phrasing. The 2026 Paper 1 departed from this in ways that penalised well-prepared students simply because the wording did not match the conventions they had been taught to expect."

The following analysis will evaluate each of these claims, taking the examination paper question-by-question.

Source documents

This analysis will refer to the following documents:

Question 1

Topic: Polynomials
Subtopic: Completing the square
Command word: 'Express' – which is in the command words list
Wording/notation: Identical to 2022 P1 Q11 and 2025 P2 Q2
Verdict: Routine. Fair question.

Question 2

Topic: Integration
Subtopic: Simple integration
Command word: 'Find' – which is in the command words list
Wording/notation: Identical to 2025 P1 Q3
Verdict: Routine. Fair question.

Question 3

Topic: Circles
Subtopic: Tangent to a circle
Command word: 'Find' – which is in the command words list
Wording/notation: Near-identical to 2021 P2 Q14
Verdict: Routine. Fair question.

Question 4

Topic: Trigonometry
Subtopics: Exact values, Addition formulae
Command words: 'Determine', 'Find', 'Hence', 'Exact value' – all in the command words list
Wording/notation: Very similar to 2021 P1 Q5 , 2022 P1 Q7 and 2023 P1 Q4
Note: Part (c) required the use of an N5 Maths trigonometric identity, which is fair.
Verdict: Harder, but a fair question.

Question 5

Topic: Functions
Subtopics: Composite functions, Range
Command words: 'Find', 'State' – both in the command words list
Wording/notation: Very similar to 2022 P2 Q5
Verdict: Mainly routine. Fair question.

Question 6

Topic: Vectors
Subtopic: Vector pathways
Command word: 'Express' – which is in the command words list
Wording/notation: Very similar to 2018 P1 Q9 and 2019 P2 Q3
Note: Neither 'divides EA with' nor the extra comma in 'u, v, and w' should have caused problems.
Verdict: Routine. Fair question.

Question 7

Topic: Differentiation
Subtopic: Tangent to a curve
Command word: 'Determine' – which is in the command words list
Wording/notation: Very similar to 2015 P1 Q2 and 2021 P2 Q1
Note 1: This question asks only for the gradient, not the full equation, which makes it easier.
Note 2: It would be possible to simplify the presentation of this question by splitting it into two shorter sentences.
Verdict: Routine. Fair question.

Question 8

Topic: Logarithms and Exponentials
Subtopic: Logarithmic equations
Command word: 'Solve' – which is in the command words list
Wording/notation: Identical to 2022 P1 Q8
Verdict: Routine. Fair question.

Question 9

Topic: Vectors
Subtopics: Collinearity, Dividing a line segment in a ratio
Command words: 'Show', 'Find' – both in the command words list
Wording/notation: Part (a) is identical to 2025 P2 Q5(a) . Part (b) is similar to 2024 P1 Q4 and others.
Note 1: Part (b) asks for one of the end-points. This is an unusual, but fair, application of the course content .
Note 2: The phrase 'is such that' also appeared in 2021 P1 Q11 but may have been unfamiliar to some.
Verdict: Partially routine. Fair question.

Question 10

Topics: Integration, Trigonometry
Subtopics: Standard integrals, Radian measure
Command word: 'Find' – which is in the command words list
Wording/notation: Near-identical to 2019 P1 Q11 and 2024 P2 Q5
Note 1: 'Find' rather than 'evaluate' is inconsequential. Students should know that a definite integral has a value.
Note 2: Many candidates find radian limits quite difficult, but they are within the specification .
Verdict: Mainly routine. Fair question.

Question 11

Topic: Polynomials
Subtopics: Factorising, Discriminant, Polynomial equations
Command words: 'Show', 'Explain', 'Give a reason', 'Find' – all in the command words list
Wording/notation: (a)(i) identical to 2024 P1 Q10 . (a)(ii) original but clear. (b) quite similar to 2016 P2 Q3 .
Note 1: Part (a)(ii) has attracted particular criticism. However, 'linear' is a standard term, even in N5 Maths.
Note 2: Contrary to the The Scotsman article, 'factors' and 'roots' are different. Pupils learn how they relate.
Note 3: Irreducible quadratic factors have appeared previously, in 2019 P2 Q10 and 2023 P1 Q10 .
Note 4: Any complaint about "constructing a justification about uniqueness" is wrong; \(b^2\!-\!4ac\!\lt\!0\) is N5 work.
Note 5: 'Explain why ... Give a reason' is tautological. Nonetheless, its import should have been clear.
Note 6: Intersection of line and curve was in 2018 P1 Q7 ; two curves is new but within the specification .
Note 7: This worked solution further demonstrates the appropriateness of the mathematical content.
Verdict: Nicely interleaved. Fair question.

Question 12

Topics: Logarithms and Exponentials, Functions and Graphs
Subtopics: Inverse functions, Related graphs
Command words: 'Sketch', 'Determine', 'State' – all in the command words list
Wording/notation: (a) identical to 2016 P1 Q10 . (b) similar to 2015 P1 Q13(a) and 2019 P2 Q8(b) .
Note: Part (b) requires quite deep 'Grade A' understanding, but is well within the scope of the specification .
Verdict: Suitably challenging. Fair question.

Overall verdict

This analysis shows that the paper was fair. While, as always, a few questions were intended to stretch more able candidates, the paper used official command words and standard notation. The wording was clear, unambiguous and similar to previous years. The petition's claims are therefore unsupported by the evidence.

While it would be wrong to discount candidates' personal experiences, this analysis demonstrates that the 'unfairness' narrative which gained so much traction online is factually incorrect. Why this sharp gap between student perception and exam reality occurred, and why it resulted in such a high number of petition signatures and such widespread social media outpouring, are questions for others to consider.