Scottish police officers have backed their colleagues south of the border in an unprecedented attack on the Home Secretary in the row over pay.
Following an emergency meeting of the Police Federation in London, aggrieved members last night approved a motion urging Jacqui Smith to quit because she had destroyed officers' trust and confidence in her ability to deal fairly with their pay and conditions.
The 140,000 rank-and-file police in England and Wales will also take part in a historic vote on whether they want to seek the right to go on strike.
Scotland's largest police federation board backed the move and said Scottish officers would be asked if they also wanted to be balloted over industrial action in support of their colleagues.
The escalating row follows the Home Secretary's refusal to backdate the Police Arbitration Tribunal's recommended 2.5% pay rise for officers south of the border, effectively giving them only a 1.9% increase by staggering introduction of the new deal.
Their fury was heightened after the Scottish Government agreed to introduce the recommendation in full in Scotland, backdating it to September.
As a result of that move, revealed by The Herald, an unprecedented north-south split in police service pay is heaping further pressure on an already-strained Union.
Police Federation chairman Jan Berry said she did not believe any officer would "do anything unlawful" but warned that the extreme sense of betrayal among the force nationwide should not be underestimated.
She said: "It is alien for police officers to want to go on strike but they feel they have been backed into a corner where their human rights have been taken away from them. They feel very aggrieved that they are being taken advantage of because they cannot legally strike."
Commenting on the ballot, she said the federation had already started moves to take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights and would now explore what officers wanted it to do next "in terms of their inability to take industrial action".
The ballot, due to be held early next year, will also look into whether recommendations of the arbitration panel over pay should be made binding on the Home Secretary in future.
Les Gray, chairman of Strathclyde Police Federation, told The Herald yesterday: "It's an absolute disgrace what has happened to our colleagues. We stand shoulder to shoulder with them and we agree the Home Secretary should resign over her betrayal of the very officers who protect her 24 hours a day.
"We will seek the views of our members shortly and if they decide they would like a ballot we will hold one."
Prime Minister Gordon Brown was also under fire earlier in the House of Commons for presiding over a situation where officers in Scotland will be paid more than their English colleagues.
SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson said that as a Scottish MP, Mr Brown was under "enormous pressure south of the border to explain why he is refusing to fund the police arbitration settlement in full - when police officers in his own (Fife) constituency are benefiting from the decision of the SNP Government to fund it fully in Scotland".
Mr Robertson also taunted Mr Brown during Prime Minister's Question Time, saying: "Police in Scotland are receiving a full pay rise including back pay from the SNP. Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to congratulate First Minister Alex Salmond for this fair decision?"
However, the Prime Minister retaliated by accusing the SNP of implementing the full increase at the expense of reneging on its manifesto pledge to put more police on Scotland's streets - something Nationalists later denied.
Mr Brown said: "The SNP said we will set out plans in our first budget for Scotland for 1000 more police', and they did not honour their promises. He Mr Robertson should be ashamed of his party."
Mr Brown's claim that not backdating the rise protected pay from inflation was later rubbished by police chiefs.
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