Details of over-inflated public sector salaries have filled newspaper columns for years and fuelled anger about rising pay inequality.
Similarly, the public mood darkens when senior public sector staff also walk away with huge redundancy deals.
Pension inequality, however, has not yet attracted nearly the same attention, but it is just as unfair as quango chiefs earning £200,000 a year.
Caveats do apply. Individuals who earn more will inevitably have bigger pensions on account of employee and employer contributions.
It is also the case that higher earners will pay more tax on their payments than somebody who has an annual pension of £15,000.
However, as today’s revelations show, pension inequality is grotesque and necessitates and urgent rethink.
We have identified ten senior public sector figures whose pension benefits were valued at more than £1.5m.
This is not the sum each individual can withdraw, but is the value placed on pension benefits should they wish to leave the scheme.
For instance, former Scottish Enterprise chief executive Lena Wilson has a cash equivalent transfer value on her pension of around £2.4m.
Wilson will enjoy an annual pension of around £80,000 when she is 60 and a lump sum of nearly £230,000. It is hard to imagine the circumstances in which these sums can be justified.
The time may have come to rethink the system of pension tax relief that disproportionately benefits higher earners. Inequality has many manifestations, but it is particularly evident during retirement.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here