I think you're probably in a minority across the country that thinks that, but that may be as much down to the individuals filling the posts rather than the posts themselves. Running the country should be a suitably well paid job - if there were some sort of formal qualifications or criteria required to do the job, rather than simply having gone to Oxford or being in the right Union. Run as a proper profession, then their salaries might be appropriate. But it isn't run as a proper profession, many don't strike me as professional people and therefore I'm struggling to see why they deserve a 10% rise. As for job security, if they're any good they won't have to worry will they!
However, I guess that takes us into a chicken / egg argument of do you get what you pay for. But as leaders of the country, I would expect them to appreciate the difference between right and correct and set an example accordingly. And cutting salaries across government whilst taking a double digit rise themselves is not leading by example.