POLITICIANS from all parties have condemned proposals to give MPs a huge salary hike – but the pay rise could still go ahead.
At a time when much of the country is suffering financially, David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg warned that it would be wrong to give MPs an extra £7000 a year.
The Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders even pledged not to take the cash, although the Prime Minister stopped short of making that commitment.
However, the body in charge of salaries, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), remained defiant and said MPs' pay had to catch up with other professions and international benchmarks.
Any rise in MPs' pay could also have a knock-on effect at Holyrood, as it helps determine how much MSPs earn.
Polls suggest the majority of the public is opposed to any pay rise for MPs.
Under the IPSA plans salaries would rise by 11% from £66,396 to £74,000 a year, costing taxpayers an extra £4.6 million a year, when national insurance is included.
However, at the same time MPs' generous pensions and "golden goodbyes" would be cut, alongside expenses for dinners, TV licences and taxis.
The proposals would not take effect until 2015, after the next general election.
Supporters of a rise argue the job of an MP is increasingly the preserve of the privileged and the well-off.
However, critics warn MPs should not get a large hike when other public servants are seeing their wages fall in real terms.
His view was echoed by Mr Miliband, who said: "I don't think MPs should be getting a 10% pay rise when nurses and teachers are facing either pay freezes or very low increases."
He said he would not take the extra cash.
His team said the labour leader was sure "the package should not go ahead, full stop".
Mr Clegg also said he would not take the extra money but hinted other LibDem MPs might, saying he was luckier than many others because he also has a ministerial salary.
Downing Street refused to say if the Prime Minister would accept the increase, saying there would be a consultation before the regulator reached a final decision.
But a Number 10 spokesman added: "The cost of politics should go down, not up. And MPs' pay shouldn't go up while public sector pay is rightly being constrained."
The proposals were also condemned by First Minister Alex Salmond, who said pay for both MPs and MSPs "should not rise beyond the limits of the restraints currently placed on public sector pay".
He added: "It is ludicrous to suggest parliamentarians should be given anything beyond these norms at a time when public sector workers are having to make do with much, much lower pay increases,.
The Scottish Government is understood to be confident there will be no increase in the pay of MSPs even if wages for MPs rise.
The Scottish Parliament voted in 2002 to link MSP salaries to those of MPs, setting the rate at 87.5%. MSPs currently earn £58,097 a year.
A Holyrood spokesman said: "This IPSA consultation exercise on Westminster MPs pay will run until October. When IPSA makes its final recommendations, then it will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body (SPCB) to consider and consult with all political parties and make a recommendation to the Parliament."
Meanwhile, one MP, Conservative Charles Walker, attacked party leaders for politicising the issue and demanded that they live on a backbencher's salary.
However, RMT union boss Bob Crow said his members would also be fighting for an 11% pay rise if the plans went ahead.
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 hereComments are closed on this article