Stipends…yet again!
- RevRabRants
- 4 days ago
- 4 min read
So, here’s the stipend stats…
2025 inflation 3.5% - stipend for 2026 increase by 2.5% - BELOW inflation
2024 inflation 2.5% - stipend for 2025 increase by 2.5% - same
2023 inflation 7.3% - stipend for 2024 increase by 5% - BELOW inflation
2022 inflation 9.07% - stipend for 2023 increase by 5% - BELOW inflation
2021 inflation 2.5% - stipend for 2022 increase by 2% - BELOW inflation
2020 inflation 0.9% - stipend for 2021 increase by 0% - BELOW inflation
2019 inflation 1.79% - stipend for 2020 increase by 2% - above inflation (just)
2018 inflation 2% - stipend for 2019 increase by 2% - same
2017 inflation 2.56% - stipend for 2018 increase by 1.5% - BELOW inflation
2016 inflation 1.6% - stipend for 2017 increase by 1% - BELOW inflation
So, out of the last ten years, stipends have risen below inflation SEVEN times.
So, here’s what it looks like for 2026 compared to teachers…
A probationer teacher receives £35,022, then…
Year 1 teacher £42,018 (year one minister £33,244)
Year 2 teacher £44,400 (year two minister £35,418)
Year 3 teacher £46,977 (year three minister £37, 591)
Year 4 teacher £49,959 (year four minister £39,766)
Year 5 teacher £52,740 (year five minister £40,853)
At the last General Assembly, I moved the following motion:
Instruct the Assembly Trustees to revise stipend scales, benchmarking with the teaching profession in Scotland, and report back to the 2026 Assembly.
It was defeated by 157 votes to 136. Not bad considering I had only 3 short minutes to convince the Assembly this was a wise move. Albeit defeated, I discern that many Commissioners saw the merit in what was being shared. The Assembly Trustees resisted, of course, despite stating that: “A well-supported ministry is essential for the Church’s future.” Hollow words, my friends.
Money is not the cure for the low morale we are currently witnessing amongst many clergy who are now trying to meet demands that are impossible to meet, though there has always been unrealistically high expectations of ministers. Ministers are over- stretched, weary, unsupported, isolated, disillusioned. Money may not be the cure, but to benchmark with the teaching profession in Scotland would at least send a signal that we are thinking about them seriously and valuing the work they do. The benchmarking I ask for is at the lowest end of the scales – the chartered, lead, principal, depute, and heads in the teaching profession, are all paid thousands, if not tens of thousands of pounds more, and I get the feeling none of them are any more stressed or hard working than our ministers.
How do we afford this increase? Quite simple. Agree the new stipend scales and see how many ministers we can afford, and that’s how we work out how many ministers we have! It’s the starting point of a Church of Scotland that still needs to be radically reformed. You think we’ve been through challenging days? More storms lie on the horizon!
Please don’t mention manses as a benefit to ministers in terms of salary upscale, it is the biggest red herring in the wild west! If you asked ministers if they’d rather have ten or fifteen grand more in stipend and no manse, I think many would jump at the chance. The cost-of-living has increased in our country and stipends have fallen way behind. Energy bills are set to increase again soon, so good luck heating that ridiculous size manse. To my favourite subject of manses, we shall return in a later blog!
To add to this mix, let me once again highlight the latest “goings on” centrally…
We are appointing a minister to be Chief Officer on a salary reaching £94,172.
We are appointing Head of Finance/General Treasurer on a salary reaching £90,405.
We are appointing a Head of Communications on a salary reaching £75,388.
We are recruiting a new Principal Clerk on a salary reaching £94,172 which has a history of appointing a minister to the post.
IMHO, to pay a minister for such posts at such a high scale is an insult to the many hard-working clergy out there. At the top end of our stipend scale we are all paid the same, this was agreed because it was seen as a “living” rather than a wage. It seems to me that, for some time now, some are more equal than others. We are also failing in keeping stipends up to date with the cost of living. It was argued that higher salaries need to be paid centrally to attract the right people from outside professions, this argument has worn thin. It only rubs salt into the wound. We can’t afford to pay ministers more, but we can afford these salaries? It only applies to a few, you say, but it is the principle that matters.
There once was a central Ministry Board that felt like it was “batting for ministers”. It is but a distant memory sadly.
Mon the reformers! Time to stand up and be counted!
For further information on stipends, see my previous blogs:
Comments