Scotland's universities face challenging times. The Scottish Government's November budget generated howls of protest from institutions already struggling to meet rising staff costs, plug holes in their pension funds, mend dilapidated buildings and pay escalating fuel bills. Simultaneously, in what is an increasingly global market, they are attempting to maintain their competitiveness with an English higher education sector being fattened by top-up fees.

Scotland's universities face challenging times. The Scottish Government's November budget generated howls of protest from institutions already struggling to meet rising staff costs, plug holes in their pension funds, mend dilapidated buildings and pay escalating fuel bills. Simultaneously, in what is an increasingly global market, they are attempting to maintain their competitiveness with an English higher education sector being fattened by top-up fees.

It is in this difficult financial climate that university staff had to make do with a 3.5% pay deal last year. However, as The Herald reveals today, most of Scotland's university principals did not share this restraint. Their salaries rose by an average of 5.2%. For the first time, all of them, including the heads of Edinburgh College of Art and Glasgow School of Art, now earn more than £100,000 a year.

The increases cover a wide range and require a note of caution. The two art schools were the subject of a special review because it has been recognised that the salaries of their principals were out of kilter with the rest of higher education. Strictly speaking, universities are not part of the public sector. They are run as independent charities and the pay of the principal and senior team is usually set by a remuneration committee and agreed by the university court. However, as at least half their budgets come from the taxpayer, these figures need to be seen in the context of the current debate over public sector pay.

At Dundee, where the university has warned it needs to make 100 job cuts, the financial situation was reflected in a salary rise for principal Sir Alan Langlands of 2%. And Dr Brian Lang at St Andrews saw a rise of only 1%. By stark contrast, the heads of Stirling, Strathclyde and Glasgow universities took rises of 7.3%, 7.6% and 8.5% respectively. Defenders of such increases argue that the job of a modern university principal is far more than a figurehead position. They run big, complex businesses on salaries that are modest compared with their private-sector peers. They are also heading up ambitious fundraising campaigns and investment programmes.

Nevertheless, lowlier staff will point out that principals often receive handsome pensions packages and payments in kind, such as elegant residences, on top of their salaries. It is hard to justify these increases at a time when lecturers are being made redundant to balance the books.

This week, the Prime Minister will attempt to persuade fellow MPs to restrict their pay rise to 1.9% this year, matching the rise being offered to the police in England and Wales. If university principals want others to tighten their belts, they, too, should first set an example themselves. Scotland's university principals bring a wealth of talent and experience to their jobs but it seems unlikely that any of them would walk away from their prestigious positions if their pay rise had been pegged back to that of university lecturers. Scotland's universities currently enjoy widespread public sympathy for the inadequate budgets they receive from the Scottish Government. Principals taking pay rises well above inflation risk squandering that sympathy.