SFC Guidance on Quality for Colleges and Universities FAQs

Yes. The international standing and reputation of Scottish tertiary education sector is very important to SFC. The TQEF has been developed to fully align with the requirements set out in ESG in line with Scottish Ministers commitments as signatories to the Bologna Process –the QAA have confirmed that they are comfortable that the TQEF will be compliant with the ESG. Ensuring continued compliance with ESG will be a key consideration of future evaluations and reviews of the TQEF.

No. SFC is acutely aware of the current pressures on our colleges and universities. The elements of the TQEF have been designed to reduce the burden on institutions. We have worked closely with our quality agency partners to drive out duplication and ensure that information is asked for only once. Each engagement with an institution will have a defined purpose and add value. Under the TQEF, the college sector will see a change in focus from annual external scrutiny to one of cyclical enhancement, allowing them to focus on improving outcomes for students.

No, the TQEF has little, if anything, in common with the OfS’s approach to quality. OfS employs a purely data-driven and concerns-related approach in which it identifies risk and undertakes investigations itself, rather than using an expert quality agency or other external/third-party equivalent. There is no cyclical external review or assurance over quality in its approach. OfS, which regulates higher education providers in England, does not work with or use the expertise or judgement of the QAA. In addition, the OfS’s approach is not compliant with the ESG, while Scotland remains fully aligned, see ENQA country information.

Scotland’s TQEF, builds on the enhancement-led approach to quality that has been in place in Scotland for many years, this will involve:

• cyclical external review by the QAA using a methodology developed by the QAA, the Tertiary Quality Enhancement Review (TQER);
• institution-led activities and self-evaluation by institutions, Institution Led Quality Review (ILQR);
• sector-owned national thematic enhancement activity, the Scottish Tertiary Enhancement Programme, (STEP) managed by QAA working with the support of other sector agencies; and
• annual quality engagement with QAA (through institutional liaison meetings) and with SFC (to cover multiple outcomes within the new Outcomes Framework (OF) and Assurance Model (AM) that will be informed by the same data and evidence sources, thus minimising duplication).

QAA have confirmed that the proposed TQEF’s proposed external review methodology ensures continued compliance with ESG and does not jeopardise this status.

Although data and evidence will underpin the TQEF; this will not be the prime driver of judgements about quality – this is a significant and key difference from the OfS’s approach. In addition, if a review of data, the outputs of review activity, and other intelligence from the Outcomes Framework and Assurance Model process indicate a concern about quality that warrants closer investigation, in most cases SFC would ask an external agency, e.g. OSCR, ES, QAA, etc., to investigate rather than investigate the issue directly.

SFC believes that this is what the TQEF does. The TQEF includes the QAA’s external review of quality on a multi-year cycle and associated follow-up activity through institutional liaison meetings as an important and central element – this will provide assurance over the quality of provision at institutions as well as supporting enhancement activity that was identified as a key principle to retain during early engagement on the development of the TQEF. QAA will also manage, on behalf of the sectors, a national tertiary quality enhancement programme, Scotland’s Tertiary Enhancement Framework (STEP).

The data that SFC and institutions use to monitor quality in between the external reviews will be through HESA and other indicators. SFC will do further work on this through the coming months to identify the precise metrics that we will use and how we will use them – institutions as well as the Tertiary Quality Steering Group (TQSG) will be closely involved in this work to ensure that we are transparent and do not create unintended and/our unhelpful consequences.

SFC has no desire to have an OfS-style purely data-driven or concerns approach to quality in Scotland, our view is that this would not be appropriate for Scottish colleges and universities and that a peer-led enhancement approach is more effective.

SFC has not made changes in the last few weeks and months without consultation. SFC has worked closely with its key delivery partners, including the QAA, on how the different delivery mechanisms and outputs of the TQEF work together to support assurance and enhancement, while ensuring that it is not overly burdensome and that it remains affordable.

The principles and elements of the TQEF are the same as those developed with sectors and worked up through workstreams with the advice and guidance of the TQSG. We have committed to an enhancement-led approach that includes peer-led external review as a key component throughout the development of the new approach. And in response to a clear and consistent steer from the sectors, we are streamlining and reducing duplication by introducing an annual Self Evaluation and Action Plan (SEAP) that will replace several elements of the previous assurance approach.

We believe that the TQEF and the broader Outcomes Framework and Assurance Model, of which TQEF is a fully integrated part, will be less burdensome than the previous arrangements. Our initial engagements indicate that this view is shared with the sectors.

SFC provides significant funding to the sector to deliver high quality provision to students at fundable bodies (as per SFC’s statutory duties). It is important for SFC and for institutions that the reputation of Scotland’s institutions for delivering high quality provision and student experience is maintained. Through our work on the TQEF and on the Outcomes Framework and Assurance Model, SFC has sought to streamline and remove duplication where we have identified this through our work and through sector engagement. We have also worked closely with our quality agency delivery partners to ensure that the new arrangements do not generate additional burden for institutions.

The TQEF will be implemented from AY2024-25, including the introduction of a new external peer review cycle, the Tertiary Quality Enhancement Review (TQER). SFC and its partner quality agencies will treat the first year of the new cycle as a development year and will adapt and refine the TQEF in response to the experience of colleges and universities.

The cycle will be seven years and will run from AY2024-25 to AY2030-31. The first year will be an implementation year and the last year will be reflection and preparation of the next cycle. The expectation is that future cycles will be six years, with the last year of each cycle being the reflection and preparation year.

Continued compliance with the ESG is important for universities standing and reputation in an international context. However, ESG states that it applies to “all higher education offered in the EHEA regardless of the mode of study or place of delivery. Thus, the ESG are also applicable to all higher education including transnational and cross-border provision”. ESG also notes that “the term “programme” refers to higher education in its broadest sense, including that which is not part of a programme leading to a formal degree”[1]. Therefore, higher education delivered in colleges is also subject to ESG. Although further education programmes do not need to meet ESG requirements, it is likely that institutions’ quality arrangements would span all of their provision.

SFC’s statutory duty is for assurance and enhancement of quality of fundable provision in fundable bodies (i.e., colleges and universities). The arrangements in colleges and universities for quality will be applicable to all of their provision and therefore institutions have a strong interest in ensuring these processes are appropriate across all of their provision, notwithstanding SFC’s interest is only in the fundable provision. In order to ensure students have access to high quality provision, whatever they are studying, and to avoid duplication, the TQEF is designed to cover all provision although we note that institutions are not required to report to SFC or QAA on all provision.

This enables quality arrangements to be considered as follows:

• SFC as relevant to the fundable provision. Details of how this applies to the delivery mechanism of the TQEF are set out in the relevant sections of the guidance.
• QAA as relevant to the scope of the Tertiary Quality Enhancement Review (TQER)
• Institutions as relevant to all of their provision.

[1] ESG • ENQA

All SFC-funded provision (credit-bearing and non-credit bearing) falls within the scope of ILQR for universities and colleges, although there may be differences between institutions in terms of the extent to which non-credit bearing activity will feature in ILQR.

To meet ESG compliance, ILQR for colleges and universities should include all higher education provision regardless of whether it is funded by SFC. This ensures that the TQEF is ESG compliant.

The mechanism for reporting the outcomes of ILQR to SFC is through the SEAP and therefore the scope of the SEAP, which is focused on priority areas in the context of the institution, is likely to be narrower than that of ILQR itself. It is for institutions to decide how they report ILQR internally.

All SFC-funded activity (credit-bearing and non-credit bearing) falls within the scope of the SEAP for universities and colleges. However, there will be differences between institutions in terms of the extent to which non-credit bearing activity will feature in the SEAP. Institutions will not be required to include details of non-SFC funded non-credit bearing activity in their SEAP. It is, however, recognised that all provision within an institution will be subject to the same/similar quality assurance and enhancement processes. Institutions should focus on what the priority areas are (within the context of the institution) when describing good practice or priority areas for development or enhancement, as these may have relevance to TQER.

Through this approach, we aim to ensure that the scope of Scotland’s Tertiary Quality Enhancement Framework meets the wider requirements of the ESG, which are focused on higher education, wherever it is delivered, while also meeting our statutory responsibility to ensure the quality of fundable provision across further and higher education and ensuring that all students enjoy a high-quality learning experience. We have however, heard the concerns raised by institutions and wish to provide further clarity around what is expected in relation to each of the delivery mechanisms that form part of the TQEF.

So, while the TQEF covers all provision, we have sought to clarify that ILQR (also known as periodic review in the ESG) should include all SFC funded activity, recognising that the extent to which non-credit bearing activity will feature in ILQR processes will vary between institutions. In terms of ESG compliance, all higher education should be included in ILQR, regardless of whether it is SFC funded, but institutions might wish to consider how this links to the scope of the TQER when planning ILQR activities. As noted in the guidance it is for institutions to decide the order and aggregation of programmes and subjects in ways which provide coherence and fit the organisational structure. In terms of reporting, it is also for the institution to decide how they wish to report the outcome of ILQR processes internally, noting that the high-level themes identified as areas for development or strength, should be considered and included in the SEAP where appropriate.

In terms of the SEAP, all SFC funded activity (credit bearing and non-credit bearing) falls into the scope of the SEAP, however we recognise that there will be differences between institutions in terms of the extent to which non-credit bearing activity will feature. While we don’t expect details of non-SFC funded activity to be included, the SEAP is a high-level summary document that includes identification of key priority areas for development and key strengths, within an institution, some of which may relate to non-SFC funded activity and have relevance to TQER. Given that the quality process for all provision will be the same or similar, we do not expect institutions to exclude key detail relating to non-funded provision, if it is relevant to institutional priorities and/or it relates to the TQER.

The TQEF forms an integral part of SFC’s new Outcomes Framework. The Outcomes Framework and Assurance Model will set out high-level expectations of colleges and universities in return for funding. The Outcomes with respect to high-quality learning and teaching will be expressed and monitored through the TQEF. No additional reporting on learning and teaching and the quality of the student experience will be required of colleges and universities beyond that outlined in the guidance document as part of TQEF.

The SFC meetings will be part of the ongoing engagement between institutions and SFC (e.g., with Outcome Managers) and will focus on the outcomes associated with funded provision. They will be arranged in advance, giving the institution the time to decide who would be most appropriate to attend. This engagement already takes place with Outcome Managers and so is not a change as such, but we recognise that there is currently variation between institutions as to who attends these meetings to discuss quality.

The meetings will form one part of the wider Outcomes Framework and Assurance Model approach. If concerns are raised about the quality of provision by either SFC or QAA (through for example, the Institutional Liaison Meetings or TQER) there will be a discussion to consider next steps. The potential to involve QAA or other agencies (where appropriate), is one of the options described as a possible intervention in the AM.

The TQEF has been designed in collaboration with the sector and our partners so that the same principles and delivery mechanisms can be flexibly applied to the different context, mission, and scale of each of our institutions. We know from our experience of the QEF that this approach works well. The parameters for ILQR set out in this Guidance give colleges and universities the scope to develop arrangements that are appropriate to their own context and proportionate to their size. QAA will assemble TQER external reviewer panels with an understanding of the institutions subject to review.

The SFC Review of Coherent Provision and Sustainability set out a vision for a coherent and better integrated tertiary education system that puts students at its centre. We believe that enhanced collaboration across the sectors is necessary to support the continued development of a quality culture across our institutions and that this is best achieved through a tertiary approach. We also want to support:

• more seamless learning pathways for students;
• support more effective collaboration across colleges and universities; and
• remove barriers to the sharing of innovation and learning, across the tertiary system to deliver better and clearer student outcomes.

SFC has taken a co-creation approach to the development of the TQEF with its key partners and stakeholders from inception through to implementation. SFC developed a shared understanding of the strengths and areas for improvement in both sectors, and identifying areas of commonality and differences to refine a set of shared principles that will underpin and inform every aspect of our new arrangements. Building on this shared understanding SFC has convened cross-sector workshops and workstreams to help shape different aspects of our new approach, supported by guidance from the Tertiary Quality Steering Group, with representation from all the key partners in the new Framework. This group is comprised of representatives from both sectors and our key delivery partners.

ILQR is an opportunity to undertake a deeper evaluation of the delivery of teaching, learning and assessment, student outcomes and the associated support in place for students over a longer period of time. This contributes to the identification of strengths and areas for development or enhancement across a subject or support service area. This process will build on existing monitoring and review activities undertaken in colleges and will contribute to the evidence base for the SEAP and TQER.

Periodic review (or ILQR as it is described in the guidance is a requirement of the ESG for all higher education (wherever it is delivered) and as such should include this provision in colleges. While ESG requirements do not pertain to further education, we expect that all SFC funded provision including further education should be included in college ILQR processes to ensure that the quality of provision for all students is considered in an equitable manner. However, there is an added benefit to including further education programmes in the process as they often act as progression routes into higher education programmes and together form a coherent suite of provision across a subject area in colleges.

We recognise the concerns about the level of burden that applying ILQR to all provision may imply, we note that institutions will not be required to report on all provision to SFC in the SEAP or to QAA in the TQER. In the guidance we have reiterated that colleges already undertake activities including annual monitoring and other review activities that will contribute to the periodic review of subjects and support services. The description of the ILQR process in our guidance reflects the guidance included in the ESG for this standard. We would encourage institutions to map their existing processes to the guidance and consider in particular how they include students and other stakeholders in ILQR as it develops within the college.

The oversight of the TQEF was discussed and agreed by the Tertiary Quality Steering Group, noting that SFC has a statutory duty to secure provision for quality assurance and enhancement and is ultimately accountable to Scottish Ministers for the effectiveness of the TQEF. However, SFC remains committed to collaboration and co-creation. As part of that commitment, the TQSG will continue to remain in its current form (representing both college and university interests) during the implementation year providing valuable advice and guidance, recognising the sectors’ role in the guidance and management of the TQEF going forward. Additionally, it was agreed that further consideration would be given to more balanced student representation from across the sector and in subsequent years we will seek advice from sector representative groups on refreshing the membership of the TQSG as appropriate.

In addition to sharing the SEAP with the quality agencies, it will be reviewed by SFC’s Student Interests, Access and Quality (SIAQ) team and by the individual institutional Outcome Managers (OMs). This will include consideration of the narrative against the available data sets for the institution. These SFC groups will meet and discuss the outcomes of their individual evaluation and to consider feedback from the respective quality agencies. These meetings will support the identification of key areas for discussion with institutions at their next meeting with OMs. We would encourage institutions to ensure that relevant institutional quality colleagues attend the meeting for that discussion. The SEAP and feedback from the institutional meeting will be used as part of the assurance process feeding into the Outcomes Framework and Assurance Model.

SFC has placed students at the heart of the TQEF and expects that student input and feedback is sought and captured across all aspects of the TQEF and throughout the academic cycle. We recognise the important role that Students’ Associations play in supporting students to have a voice and feed into enhancement of the learning experience.

However, we recognise that there are differences in capacity between Students’ Associations and there are additional pressures on students which can make participation in enhancement activity challenging.

We have used the term “students” to encompass students and Students’ Associations to allow for as much flexibility as possible for engaging and partnering with students.

To support institutions, Students’ Associations and the wider student body, SFC commissioned sparqs to develop the Student Learning Experience (SLE) model and Student Partnership Ambition Statement and Features.

Use of the SLE model should be embedded in normal institutional activities. It is designed to support conversations with students across nine building blocks that have been identified by students as making up the learning experience. It should be used across all levels of an institution to gather student feedback and inform self-evaluation. You can find out more about SFC’s expectations on the use of the SLE model and student engagement in institutional-led quality review in the quality guidance on page 42.

The Student Partnership Ambition statement will outline the direction of travel for the sector as we work collectively to enhance student partnership. We recognise that institutions will be at different stages of the partnership journey, and we anticipate that the ambition statement and features will help support institutions to develop their approaches in the coming years. We will be seeking evidence of the development and enhancement of student partnership in future SEAP submissions.

For information on the use of the new tools in the SEAP, see page 53 in the quality guidance and please refer to sparqs resources.

sparqs will be supporting Students’ Associations and institutions to engage with the Student Learning Experience Model, Ambition Statement and featured resources and will aid the development of activities that allow students to engage with the different elements of the TQEF, in line with their individual context. We would encourage institutions, as you engage with the tools over the course of the cycle, to share experiences and best practice to support learning across the sector.

In addition, the QAA will also provide support and training for students and Students’ Associations around the Tertiary Quality Enhancement Review. The QAA and CDN will also be working with students and Students’ Associations on Scotland’s Tertiary Enhancement Programme. This will ensure that our students and Students’ Associations continue to be an essential part of Scotland’s approach to delivering high quality learning and teaching across the tertiary education sector.

SFC will also be sharing some feedback about this challenge and how to address it, gathered from students attending the sparqs “That’s Quality” event.

No. Institutions are expected to conduct annual monitoring of all learning and teaching provision, while support/professional services are included in the periodic Institution-Led Quality Review (ILQR) which you can find guidance on in Annex A of the new quality guidance. Periodic review of all provision and support/professional services should take place on a cycle of no more than six-years.

We recognise that, for sector colleagues, the transition from the previous well-established frameworks to the TQEF may raise questions on how the framework impacts institutional operations and processes.

To support the sector SFC has developed resources which include these FAQs. SFC have brought together a TQEF Toolkit which provides access to the main diagrams and images for use in internal presentations on the TQEF and guidance on how to use the TQEF branding. We have also produced a short video which outlines the key elements of the TQEF.

QAA and CDN, with the support of ES and sparqs, will deliver a coherent programme of activity to enhance institutions capacity to fully participate in the TQEF. The type and mode of delivery of this support will be determined by the quality agencies in response to the needs of the sector.

If there are specific questions or requests for support on the TQEF, SFC would encourage sector colleagues to contact us at quality@sfc.ac.uk.

The SEAP guidance covers three separate parts. The guidelines in the first section focuses on prompts for institutional self-evaluation. Enabling each institution to reflect and present its in-year progress, summarise the areas of focus at an institutional level and contextualise the actions that the institution intends to take to address weaknesses or achieve further enhancements. Institutions can develop the self-evaluation report in a way that suits their individual context and utilise their in-house style.

The second part of the SEAP is the Action Plan, and we have provided a template for institutions to use if they choose. The template aligns with the expected template for submission of actions in response to TQER.

The last part is the Statement of Assurance, which should be signed by your Accountable Officer and submitted with your SEAP.

We have provided guidance that your self-evaluation should be in the region of 5,000 words, excluding the Action Plan. Although there is flexibility in the length of submission, we would encourage institutions to keep the SEAP concise as it is a high-level summary and should not include descriptions of process.

You can access the SEAP guidance, Action Plan and Statement of Assurance in Annex B, page 46 to 59 of the new guidance.

Yes, the intention is to develop a tertiary approach to concerns (working with QAA and the other agencies), that will be similar to and replace the current Scottish Quality Concerns Scheme. This will enable students, staff and other stakeholders to raise concerns around systemic issues about quality and standards in Scottish further and higher education (i.e. not resolution of individual grievances).

In addition, we have specified in the new quality guidance (section 6, page 38, para 136) that we are seeking greater openness, consistency and accountability from institutions in recording, reporting and handling complaints in line with the expectations of the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman (SPSO) Model Complaints Handling Procedures.

You can find out more about complaints and concerns under the TQEF in section 6 of the new quality guidance.

Over many years Education Scotland (ES) has developed a profound understanding of how colleges deliver high-quality learning provision. This insight will be deployed in a number of important ways to support the implementation of the new Framework.

Working with the QAA and CDN, ES will support the development of a coherent programme of activity to enhance colleges’ capacity to fully participate in the TQEF. The type and mode of delivery of this support will be determined by ES and partner quality agencies in response to the needs of the sector, but the programme may include content relating to effective self-evaluation and action planning or the use of data to better understand performance and support enhancement.

While training for the TQER reviewer pool will be delivered by the QAA, they will be supported in this by ES who have significant experience in supporting individuals undertaking review activities in colleges. This will also help ensure the issues and outcomes identified by ES in previous review cycles are incorporated, as appropriate, in the new approach.

ES will also support SFC in its review of colleges’ annual SEAP submissions, advising SFC on how effectively and accurately they reflect their own understanding of colleges’ performance.

ES has been retained by SFC to conduct ad hoc investigations of concerns. Over the course of AY2024-25 ES and the other quality agencies will support the SFC-led development of a tertiary concerns scheme to supersede the scheme currently delivered by the QAA for the university sector.

Education Scotland will no longer undertake a programme of annual engagement or link visits with colleges in taking forward the activities outlined above.

How the metrics associated with the TQEF and the wider Outcome Framework and Assurance Model are monitored and evaluated is still being developed and will be part of an ongoing discussion with the sector in the coming year. It is important to us that the data are considered within the context of the individual institution.

The SEAP will provide an annual reflection of an institution’s progress on its strategic assurance and enhancement activity. It will feed directly into and sit alongside the Strategic Impact Assessment (SIA) that institutions will be asked to do by the QAA as part of their external review preparation.

It is important to note though that during the year of review, institutions will not be asked to complete a SEAP. In that year, the TQER will be used by SFC to gain assurance on the quality of provision for institutions undergoing review.

During the first cycle of the TQEF there will be some variation on how many SEAPs an institution will have submitted. However, the QAA is mindful of this and institutions will be given advance warning of where their review will fall in the review schedule, so that they have time to prepare.

If you have further questions about the use of SEAPs in the TQER please contact QAA at: ARCadmin@qaa.ac.uk

The QAA consultation on the Tertiary Quality Enhancement Review method guidance, closed on 02 September. QAA are planning to finalise and publish the guidance in October.

Further details about Scotland’s Tertiary Enhancement Programme were shared with the sector by QAA and CDN on 12 September 2024 at their joint conference.

SFC does not intend to publish the SEAPs or any individual feedback. SFC will continue to publish sector overview reports, which contain the high-level themes collated from key sources such as the SEAPs. These will be in line with previous SFC practice and will not individually name institutions.

Outcome Managers play an important role, and take the lead, for SFC in institutional liaison.

The intention is that Outcome Managers will ensure that one of their regular institutional meetings each year will focus on quality. The Outcome Managers will review the relevant SEAPs and be supported in the analysis of the SEAPs by feedback from SFC’s Student Interests, Access and Quality team and the quality agencies.

The focus of these discussions with institutions will be on the data and institutional outcomes. (Find out more on page 26, para 82 of the new quality guidance.)

Institutions will also have an annual meeting with the QAA which provides an opportunity to seek advice on key areas of quality assurance and enhancement and prepare for, or follow-up from, external review. (Find out more on page 26, para 83 to 84 of the new quality guidance.)

You can find out more in the guidance in section 4: TQEF Delivery Mechanisms, page 24, of the new quality guidance.

As the tertiary education sector transitions from the previous Outcome Agreement (OA) approach to the wider Outcomes Framework and Assurance Model (OF and AM) and TQEF, there is still a need for institutions to evaluate their Outcome Agreement performance for AY 2023-24. However, the high-quality learning and teaching element has been removed from the OA self-evaluation as this will be replaced by the SEAP. This removes any possible overlap for reporting about learning and quality in respect of 2023-24.

Going forward the SEAP will form the mechanism for reporting the high-quality learning and teaching element of the OF and AM and will not be included in the contextual commentary either. SFC does not intend for institutions to duplicate this in their returns.

If institutions are unsure what should be in the OA self-evaluation and the SEAP, please contact us at: quality@sfc.ac.uk.

SFC is developing a resource which will be published on the SFC website in the coming weeks during the autumn of 2024.

SDS quality assurance arrangements apply to all learning providers (including employers, independent training providers (ITPs), local authorities, managing agents, and colleges) that are directly contracted to deliver SDS-funded work-based learning programmes.

ES HMIE is commissioned by the Scottish Government to undertake the independent external review of MA provision across all providers.

These arrangements will continue alongside the TQEF. SDS and ES HMIE are commissioned by Scottish Government to undertake these arrangements and they have the specific knowledge and expertise to do so across all providers and can, as a result, benchmark the quality for the benefit all learners and employers.

The focus of the ES HMIE review in colleges will be specific and limited to MA provision. This is similar to the approach taken with other regulators or statutory bodies who undertake reviews of provision with limited focus, e.g. ,the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

The Scottish Government will take assurance on wider aspects of provision and student experience from the delivery mechanisms of the TQEF, including the Tertiary Quality Enhancement Review (TQER).

In discussions with the Scottish Government and ES HMIE, it has been agreed that the TQER cycle will be shared with ES HMIE so that they can ensure that the external review of MA provision in colleges does not coincide with planned TQER visits. There may at times be a need for colleges to be sampled as part of a wider review of , in relation to MAs only, but this will be limited to the staff directly involved in leadership and delivery e.g. managers, lecturers and groups of learners.

If you have any questions about the review of MAs, please contact Joe Mulholland, His Majesty’s Inspector, Head of Scrutiny, Education Scotland, email: joseph.mulholland@educationscotland.gov.scot.