The Supremes (Sumption etc, not Diana Ross and Mary Wilson) have done a terrific job with this ruling on Article 50. By a majority of 8-3 they have decided that Parliament must vote on triggering the mechanism which begins Brexit. They also ruled that the devolved parliament in Edinburgh and other devolved bodies do not get what would have amounted to a veto.

This is a terrific result all round. It means:

1) Parliamentary sovereignty restored, which for many of us who voted for Brexit was a big part of the point. A British court has ruled, sensibly, on British constitutional law. Bravo.

2) The over mighty Executive is reminded that Parliament is sovereign, which will, hopefully, give some comfort to moderate Remainers that Brexit is not about steamrollering through one narrow view under the banner of the “52%”. Parliamentary scrutiny matters.

3) It will have infuriated the SNP, which is always a bonus. More seriously, the government was deeply worried about the prospect of having to run Article 50 past Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont. This would have become a constitutional nightmare. As it is, the SNP government lost and will now get on its high horse (putting on its most pious expression) and proceed to go round in circles for a while. Which will be fun to watch.

Can we now get the Supreme Court to rule on Piers Morgan? He is in the news again because actor Ewan McGregor declined to be interviewed by him over comments Morgan made about the anti-Trump Women’s March. Morgan is in overdrive right now. He seems to have become almost unhinged since his friend Donald Trump became President. Can we have a binding ruling from the Supremes on it being mandatory to ignore Piers Morgan? Or can they at least order him to calm down?