It is nonsense to suggest that all 650 MPs should receive much higher salaries than at present because, as some have suggested, "they are doing a very important job in running the country" ("Time to tackle the issue of MPs' pay", Herald editorial, December 13").

No they are not - the great majority on the green benches are there merely to obey the orders of the party whips, voting for the policies their leaders have already decided on without consultation, and against opposition policies. Backbench MPs are not expected to think for themselves on any issue and vote accordingly, and only a few rebels with no remaining political ambitions are able to do otherwise.

Even in their other role representing their constituents and solving their problems, there is very little an individual MP can achieve. In most cases it involves writing a letter on official House of Commons notepaper, and hoping that some jobsworth civil servant will be sufficiently impressed to risk his career by showing some initiative and doing something to solve the problem.

A backbench MP has far less day-to-day responsibility than a consultant surgeon, a head teacher or a senior business manager, and there is no reason why they should be paid far more than them. Even after the expenses scandal a few years ago ordinary MPs still have a very generous system of allowances and other perks that most of us in the real world can only dream of.

If an 11% rise in MPs' salaries is now required, may I suggest that they are given a 2% rise immediately, followed by further 2% rises in each of the next four years. That would get them up to the level suggested by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and even that would be much better than most public servants are likely to receive in the continuing austerity regime.

Thereafter MPs' salaries, expenses and pension contributions should exactly mirror the annual average across the entire public sector, just to ensure that "we are all in it together". Those who are already millionaires could join in by refusing any salaries or expenses.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

YOUR editorial which generally supported the anticipated £7600 increase in MPs' annual salary left me bemused.You make several observations, including "the longer any pay increase is deferred, the larger the gap is likely to become between the pay of MPs and other senior professionals".

Regarding the comparison to "other senior professionals" just exactly what are our MP's professional at? Is it illegal wars, flipping property, being creative with expenses claims, or making daft decisions (the bedroom tax for example)?

You allude to the fact that MPs are to be considered to be on a par with senior professionals in our society, most of whom will have had to obtain numerous qualifications and/or university degrees, usually after years of study, to carry out their roles with the resultant well-deserved remuneration for doing so.

Why are MPs to be classifed in this senior professional role in terms of salary when the reality is that no prospective MP needs any educational qualification whatsoever as a prerequisite for appointment as an MP? Applicants for the role of an MP don't even need job-related experience before taking up their position in Westminster.

In what other role/profession in the UK can someone with no educational qualifications and often with very limited ability (other than to talk a good game during the selection process) obtain a post paying a salary from the public purse possibly soon to be in excess of £70,000 a year?

I suggest we keep MPs' pay as it is, and if we as the voting public see a decided increase in quality, professionalism and decision-making which shows that they do occupy an office that does command respect, only then should consideration be given to any increase in salary.

John S Milligan,

86 Irvine Road,

Kilmarnock.

ISOBEL Lindsay asks me whether I consider Glasgow's retail economy to be a success (Letters, December 13), and describes it as "one big glitzy street and two others where the pound shops, charity shops and empty shops are prominent, presumably because of all the people who are on minimum wage. Poverty seeps into the small glossy enclave."

In response, I can quote the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce's website, which tells us: "The 2013 Experian report on the UK's retail sector showed that London's West End continues to lead, followed by Glasgow, Birmingham and Manchester city centres in that order. There are over 1500 shops in the city centre which generate £2.4bn per annum retail sales turnover, supporting over 150,000 jobs in Glasgow city centre and helping attract 2.2 million visitors each year."

I call that success; your readers can decide for themselves whether they agree. Likewise, they may also wish to consider whether it is not also a success that Glasgow's peripheral housing schemes have major retailers nearby (Silverburn at Pollok, Great Western Retail Park at Drumchapel, Glasgow Fort at Easterhouse, and so on), each serving and employing local people.

Similarly, I consider it to be a considerable economic and social success that in northwest Glasgow, Maryhill has a bigger Tesco than Milngavie, with a wider range of goods available at a greater range of prices. After all, why should these only be available to the suburban middle class and not to the widest possible clientele?

Peter A Russell,

87 Munro Road,

Jordanhill,

Glasgow.

IS anyone surprised by the increase in spin expenditure by the Scottish Government ("Bill for spin doctors hits £10m", The Herald, December 12)? Or by the public money spent by the 2014 committee promoting a Commonwealth Games and their unproven promises of sporting legacy?

George Orwell long ago foresaw a state which told its citizens what to think. Long before that, Robert Tressell had written of the Ragged Trouser'd starving citizen expected to rejoice at public sector vanity projects, a book that brought me to tears.

Life is now imitating art. Fiction has become fact. Both scenarios have come to pass in Scotland.

I sincerely hope I will be long dead before the Hunger Games becomes a reality in a crowded George Square or Princes Street Gardens and is broadcast live on Scottish Government TV.

Robert Bennie,

Clayslaps Road,

Glasgow.