On a more general point, as a former teacher I note how often politicians (and many others) are frequently keen to say what should be ADDED to the school curriculum but they rarely suggest what the new material should REPLACE. There are only a fixed number of hours in the school week (and only a limited number of staff in each school with the expertise to teach a new area of the curriculum).
I have no objection, per se, to 'Scottish Studies' being taught in Scottish schools. However, if it is to be introduced as a specific timetabled subject, who is to teach it? Should it be the English department (so that the influences of Burns can be more thoroughly studied), or the Art department (so that the Spook School or the Glasgow Boys can come to the fore), or the History Department (so that the Battle of Bannockburn is given greater importance)? However it's done, it would end up with 'non-specialists' teaching the subject.
It would seem more logical to (if necessary) to adjust the current curriculum taught by English, Art and History teachers, in order to give greater emphasis to Scots history and culture. That would help Scottish pupils to learn about their country's heritage, without needing to find a new slot in the timetable (at the expense of another subject) and while still ensuring that they're taught by specialists in the relevant fields.
Chris