Steerpike

PA Media are now reporting that the Duchess of Sussex did formally complain to ITV over Piers Morgan's comments on GMB amid concerns that his comments may affect others attempting to deal with their mental health problems. The Good Morning Britain co-host quit last night, with a spokesman for ITV subsequently refusing to deny that the pregnant royal had submitted a complaint. His decision on Tuesday came after a difficult morning for Morgan who stormed off set after fellow presenter Alex Beresford accused him of ‘absolutely diabolical’ treatment of Meghan Markle (Morgan had said he did not believe the Duchess of Sussex's claims in Monday's interview).

It’s pretty hard to dispute that the EU’s vaccine procurement scheme has been nothing short of a shambles this year, with the bloc failing to strike deals quickly enough with pharmaceutical companies, leading to dosage shortages for member states. The disaster has led to even the Continent’s most ardent Europhiles, from Guy Verhofstadt to the German press, praising the UK’s post-Brexit vaccine procurement. Amazingly though, it appears there are some in the UK who still feel that Britain should have joined the EU’s woeful vaccine scheme. On Politics Live today, Layla Moran, the Lib Dems’ Foreign Affairs spokeswoman, suggested instead of striking out on our own, we should have used our negotiating expertise to help the EU strike better deals.

Rishi Sunak's Budget has been greeted fairly favourably. The Chancellor has succeeded in avoiding sparking uproar on the Tory backbenches. And Labour's response was muted. But not everyone is happy. Step forward Caroline Lucas. The Green party MP, beamed in to the Commons from Brighton (where else?), found a fatal flaw in Sunak's announcement: 'I say in all seriousness, our nation's health and prosperity would be better served by a Chancellor who cared rather more about hedges and hedgehogs and less about hedge funds' Mr S is glad to finally hear MPs sticking up for the issues that matter...

Today – after the deputy First Minister John Swinney was threatened with a no-confidence vote in the Scottish Parliament – the SNP finally agreed to release its legal advice from Alex Salmond’s challenge against the government. Mr S can see why Nicola Sturgeon wanted to keep the advice hidden... The documents concern Salmond’s successful legal challenge against the Scottish government, after it botched an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct made against him (Salmond was later acquitted of these charges in a criminal court). In January 2019 he won his case and the Scottish government was forced to pay out half a million in costs.

It's not the crime, it's the cover-up: just as Watergate exposed the workings of the Nixon White House the Salmond inquiry is giving the world a glimpse of how the SNP works in Edinburgh. And how the SNP-led committee investigating Nicola Sturgeon is shameless in its determination to rig the system. First, the committee tried not to publish Alex Salmond’s full evidence against Nicola Sturgeon citing legal reasons. That defence fell apart when The Spectator went to the High Court. Then, outrageously, the Crown Office (Scotland’s state prosecutors) told the committee to censor Salmond’s evidence. Leading to a question: what on earth was it playing at by interfering with parliament?

For most of the past year, Alex Salmond has been engaged in a vicious and high-profile war against his successor, Nicola Sturgeon, with Salmond suggesting that the Scottish establishment has conspired against him to keep him out of public life and have him jailed. Now it appears that Salmond has been waging war against a Scottish newspaper as well. Today the press regulator Ipso published details of a complaint made by Salmond against the Scotland on Sunday, sister paper to the Scotsman. Salmond had taken issue with an article published by the paper in April in the aftermath of his criminal trial – at which the former First Minister was acquitted on all counts.