On paper, at least, Nicola Sturgeon has become the highest paid politician in the UK.

From next month, the post of First Minister of Scotland attracts an official salary of £144,687.

The sum is higher than the £142,500 the Prime Minister earns and, thanks to the £1007 rise approved by MSPs yesterday, it leapfrogs the £143,911 paid to Boris Johnson as London Mayor. No politician in Britain is thought to earn more.

It is important to stress that Ms Sturgeon has agreed to return a large slice of her salary. She will accept £135,605, maintaining Alex Salmond's voluntary pledge to peg his salary at its 2008/9 level. Other cabinet ministers will do the same, foregoing a portion of the £103,495 to which they will be entitled from the start of the new financial year, including, of course, the £720 rise they awarded themselves yesterday.

Politically, that is a wise move. In an election campaign where the SNP and Labour are at daggers drawn over which party offers the best alternative to austerity and which provides the best hope of raising living standards, giving themselves a generous, inflation-busting pay hike would be nothing short of obscene.

On a day when Roseanna Cunningham, the fair work secretary, called for the £3.30 minimum wage for apprentices to be raised, and when Scottish Labour staged a low pay summit, voters would rightly have felt outraged.

Holyrood's decision, however, does raise questions about the worth of politicians and how much we are prepared to pay for the people who represent our communities, pass our laws and deliver the policies that shape our country.

MSPs agreed to give themselves a 0.7 per cent pay rise, taking a backbenchers salary to £59,089, a rise of £411. Are they worth it? Would those who take a generally dim view of politicians pay more to secure better candidates? Or would that be throwing good money after bad?

Rightly or wrongly, a strong section of public opinion veers towards the latter view. Unless it changes, we face a situation where, for the some at least, entering politics will continue to require a degree of financial sacrifice. MSPs are not badly paid, far from it, but some could earn considerably more in other walks of life.

The pay rise MSPs awarded themselves yesterday was the result of de-coupling their salaries from those at Westminster. There can be little disagreement that is the right thing to do.

MPs are expected to receive a substantial pay rise after the election, taking their basic salary from £67,060 to £74,000. The change, recommended by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, is designed to reflect tighter allowances, reduced pensions and the loss of other perks following the expenses scandal. If that can be justified at Westminster - another difficult question - it cannot at Holyrood. To its credit, the Scottish Parliament's more robust regime prevented the abuses witnessed on the banks of the Thames and has not needed to be torn up. In future MSPs' pay will rise in line with average public sector pay, rather than soaring thanks to special circumstances at Westminster.

The big question, though, remains. How much do we want to pay our politicians. Perhaps it will take a brave minister to declare: "I'm worth it," and take their full salary before we know the answer.