SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford has been branded 'extremely rude' after refusing to sit down during a fiery Commons Brexit debate.
Blackford intervened on his colleague Pete Wishart to raise concerns on the government's approach to devolution on Brexit matters.
But his speech was far longer than MPs expected, prompting the deputy speaker to interrupt.
Dame Rosie Winterton said: "It's quite a long intervention."
She calledWishart to resume his speech, but Blackford continued speaking - prompting a furious response from the Tory benches while Dame Rosie urged him to stop.
Blackford thundered: "I will say to the Deputy Speaker, that Scotland's voice will be heard."
Dame Rosie replied: "That was extremely rude, extremely rude, extremely rude. The honourable gentleman must resume his seat."
Shouts of "sit down" could be heard from the Tory benches among other heckles.
Wishart said Blackford was right to be "absolutely furious" about Westminster's plans for Scotland.
Top news stories today
He said of the Tory MPs: "They're all bawling and screaming, put the cameras round on them.
"We want Scotland to see you screaming at us, that builds support for us, keep on doing it."
Wishart said Scotland is "making up its mind" on its future, adding: "Scotland will become an independent nation in the next year.
In a statement, it said: "We need to know that any inquiry will be public with the ability for families to contribute their experiences and that it will have the power to access all of the evidence and witnesses needed.
'Disappointing'
"We also believe that a part of any inquiry must begin now to take fast action in order to prevent further unnecessary deaths should we encounter a second wave."
The group added that it was "so disappointing the prime minister is refusing to meet with or listen to bereaved families".
At Prime Minister's Questions, acting Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey said the UK had "suffered one of the worst death rates in the world and Europe's worst death rate for health and care workers".
If the PM "still rejects an immediate inquiry," he asked, "will he instead commit in principle to a future public inquiry?"
Mr Johnson said now was not the "right moment to devote huge amounts of official time to an inquiry".
'Real teeth'
But he added: "Of course we will seek to learn the lessons of this pandemic in the future and certainly we will have an independent inquiry into what happened."
Downing Street was unable to give any further details about the nature of the inquiry when pressed on whether it will be judge-led or when it will begin, saying that the remit would be set out "in due course".
Sir Ed Davey said he had written to the prime minister to ask him to "confirm that it should be an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005," which he said would give it "real teeth… to get to the bottom of the issue".
He told BBC news he had called for an inquiry "because there's been tens of thousands of deaths" and the bereaved families "need to have some answers". He also said an inquiry should look at the economic impact of the virus.
This is quite a significant moment.
We know from past inquiries, like the Iraq inquiry or the Leveson inquiry into the media, that they can shape the reputations of the most powerful and probe their innermost thinking in moments of crisis in a way that's often hard to do through the normal scrutiny of politicians and journalists.
But there are an awful lot of unanswered questions.
We don't really know what the prime minister meant when he talked about an independent inquiry - that could be a full blown judge-led inquiry or a much lower calibre investigation led by an academic or maybe a select committee.
We don't know the timeframe. The prime minister has indicated he does not think we should hold the inquiry while we're still grappling with coronavirus but that means it could be months, even years away.
We don't know the remit of the inquiry or the authority - will it be the sort of inquiry where witnesses are questioned under oath by barristers led by a judge?
My guess, and it is only a guess, is that it will have to be of similar stature and authority to the Iraq inquiry.
Sir Ed's rival for the Lib Dem leadership, Layla Moran, who chairs an all-party group on coronavirus, called on the prime minister to "commit to a public inquiry now, not kick this into long grass".
'Aware of report'
During PMQs, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer pressed the prime minister on whether he had learned the lessons of a report this week, which warned about 120,000 new coronavirus deaths in a second wave of infections this winter.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
"One of the key recommendations in this report commissioned by the government's office for science, is that testing and tracing capacity will need to be significantly expanded to cope with increased demands over the winter," said Sir Keir
"The reality is this - trace and track is not working as promised as it stands today."
The Labour leader questioned whether the prime minister had even read the scientists' report.
Mr Johnson said he was "aware of the report" but accused the Labour leader of "endlessly knocking the confidence of the people in this country" with criticism of the government's approach.
He added: "Our test and trace system is as good as or better than any other system in the world and yes, it will play a vital part in ensuring that we do not have a second spike this winter."
'Kidding no-one'
Sir Keir said it was "perfectly possible to support track and trace and point out the problems".
He told the PM that "standing up every week and saying it's a 'stunning success' is kidding no-one - that's not giving people confidence in the system".
"They'd like a prime minister who stands up and says 'there are problems and this is what I'm going to do about them'," he added.
Mr Johnson accused the Labour leader of constantly switching from supporting the government to attacking it, with a swipe at Sir Keir's former profession as a lawyer.
"He needs to make up his mind about which brief he's going to take today because at the moment he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein."
A spokesman for the Labour leader said after PMQs: "Keir was raising very serious concerns from bereaved relatives and the prime minister responded with a pre-prepared joke."
What could an inquiry look like?
Independent inquiries can take many forms - from full public inquiries that can take years, or in some cases decades, and cost millions of pounds; to smaller scale, more fleet-footed investigations.
The idea is to hold the powerful to account and try to learn lessons from decisions that have gone wrong, and how to avoid repeating scandals and tragic events in the future.
Recent examples of judge-led inquiries include the Leveson inquiry into media standards, or the ongoing inquiry into the Grenfell Tower catastrophe.
Other inquiries, such as 2009 Iraq inquiry, headed by a retired senior civil servant Sir John Chilcot, do not take evidence under oath.
The government of the day is normally expected to adopt many, if not all, of the recommendations of an official inquiry, although it does not always work out like that in practice.
Conservative MP Julian Lewis has been appointed chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and not Chris Grayling as had been expected.
Concerns had been raised that the body's impartiality could be undermined, with members of the committee backing Mr Lewis instead.
The committee scrutinises the work of the intelligence and security services.
It is due to publish a long-awaited report on alleged Russian interference in UK politics.
Publication has been held up by the 2019 election and then a delay in setting up the committee. It has been the longest hiatus since the committee was established in the early 90s.
After Boris Johnson nominated five Conservative MPs for the committee last week - giving them a majority - it had been thought Chris Grayling was a shoo-in for the chairman position.
But it seems there was a coup. Opposition members of the committee were worried Mr Grayling would be too close to No 10, and decided to back Julian Lewis. It appears he then backed himself, thus securing a majority.
It's an embarrassment for No 10 who are widely thought to have favoured the former transport secretary. A spokesman said the decision was for the committee alone.
But it also suggests the members are determined to stay impartial - and paves the way for the publication of the long-delayed report into alleged Russian interference in British democracy, which was completed last October but has been repeatedly delayed.
Mr Grayling held cabinet positions under David Cameron and Theresa May including transport secretary.
Despite supporting Mr Johnson in the Conservative leadership election he was not given a role in government.
The other Conservative committee members are Sir John Hayes, Mr Lewis, Mark Pritchard, and Theresa Villiers. There are two Labour MPs - Kevan Jones and Dame Diana Johnson - plus Labour peer Lord West of Spithead.
Stewart Hosie is the SNP's representative on the committee.
One of the first jobs of the newly formed committee will be to publish the Russia report.
It includes evidence from UK intelligence services concerning Russian attempts to influence the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum and 2017 general election.
The delay in publication has led to speculation the report contains details embarrassing for the Conservatives, however leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg said the hold up was due to a number of committee members leaving Parliament and the need "to make sure that the right people with the right level of experience and responsibility could be appointed".
Speaking in the House of Commons on Monday, Mr Jones said the report should be produced before Parliament goes into recess on 22 July.
"There's no reason why it shouldn't be. It's been through both the committee, it's been agreed through the redaction process, and it's been agreed by government," he says.
Boris Johnson has for the first time committed to an "independent inquiry" into the coronavirus pandemic.
The prime minister said it was not right to devote "huge amounts of official time" to an inquiry when the UK is "in the middle" of a pandemic.
But - in response to a question from from acting Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey - he said there would "certainly" be in inquiry "in the future".
He has previously rejected calls for an inquiry into the pandemic in the UK.
More than 150,000 people have signed an online petition organised by the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice, calling for an immediate inquiry into the government's handling of the pandemic, ahead of a potential second wave.
At Prime Minister's Questions, Ed Davey said the UK had "suffered one of the worst death rates in the world and Europe's worst death rate for health and care workers".
If the PM "still rejects an immediate inquiry," he asked, "will he instead commit in principle to a future public inquiry?"
Mr Johnson said now was not the "right moment to devote huge amounts of official time to an inquiry".
But he added: "Of course we will seek to learn the lessons of this pandemic in the future and certainly we will have an independent inquiry into what happened."
Downing Street was unable to give any further details about the nature of the inquiry when pressed on whether it will be judge-led or when it will begin, saying that the remit would be set out "in due course".
Sir Ed Davey said he had written to the prime minister to ask him to "confirm that it should be an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005," which he said would give it "real teeth… to get to the bottom of the issue".
He told BBC news he had called for an inquiry "because there's been tens of thousands of deaths" and the bereaved families "need to have some answers". He also said an inquiry should look at the economic impact of the virus.
This is quite a significant moment.
We know from past inquiries, like the Iraq inquiry or the Leveson inquiry into the media, that they can shape the reputations of the most powerful and probe their innermost thinking in moments of crisis in a way that's often hard to do through the normal scrutiny of politicians and journalists.
But there are an awful lot of unanswered questions.
We don't really know what the prime minister meant when he talked about an independent inquiry - that could be a full blown judge-led inquiry or a much lower calibre investigation led by an academic or maybe a select committee.
We don't know the timeframe. The prime minister has indicated he does not think we should hold the inquiry while we're still grappling with coronavirus but that means it could be months, even years away.
We don't know the remit of the inquiry or the authority - will it be the sort of inquiry where witnesses are questioned under oath by barristers led by a judge?
My guess, and it is only a guess, is that it will have to be of similar stature and authority to the Iraq inquiry.
Sir Ed's rival for the Lib Dem leadership, Layla Moran, who chairs an all-party group on coronavirus, called on the prime minister to "commit to a public inquiry now, not kick this into long grass".
'Aware of report'
During PMQs, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer pressed the prime minister on whether he had learned the lessons of a report this week, which warned about 120,000 new coronavirus deaths in a second wave of infections this winter.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
"One of the key recommendations in this report commissioned by the government's office for science, is that testing and tracing capacity will need to be significantly expanded to cope with increased demands over the winter," said Sir Keir
"The reality is this - trace and track is not working as promised as it stands today."
The Labour leader questioned whether the prime minister had even read the scientists' report.
Mr Johnson said he was "aware of the report" but accused the Labour leader of "endlessly knocking the confidence of the people in this country" with criticism of the government's approach.
He added: "Our test and trace system is as good as or better than any other system in the world and yes, it will play a vital part in ensuring that we do not have a second spike this winter."
'Kidding no-one'
Sir Keir said it was "perfectly possible to support track and trace and point out the problems".
He told the PM that "standing up every week and saying it's a 'stunning success' is kidding no-one - that's not giving people confidence in the system".
"They'd like a prime minister who stands up and says 'there are problems and this is what I'm going to do about them'," he added.
Mr Johnson accused the Labour leader of constantly switching from supporting the government to attacking it, with a swipe at Sir Keir's former profession as a lawyer.
"He needs to make up his mind about which brief he's going to take today because at the moment he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein."
A spokesman for the Labour leader said after PMQs: "Keir was raising very serious concerns from bereaved relatives and the prime minister responded with a pre-prepared joke."
What could an inquiry look like?
Independent inquiries can take many forms - from full public inquiries that can take years, or in some cases decades, and cost millions of pounds; to smaller scale, more fleet-footed investigations.
The idea is to hold the powerful to account and try to learn lessons from decisions that have gone wrong, and how to avoid repeating scandals and tragic events in the future.
Recent examples of judge-led inquiries include the Leveson inquiry into media standards, or the ongoing inquiry into the Grenfell Tower catastrophe.
Other inquiries, such as 2009 Iraq inquiry, headed by a retired senior civil servant Sir John Chilcot, do not take evidence under oath.
The government of the day is normally expected to adopt many, if not all, of the recommendations of an official inquiry, although it does not always work out like that in practice.
The Andrew Neil Show will disappear from BBC schedules as part of cuts to the corporation's news operation.
The political discussion programme had already been off the air during the Covid-19 crisis and will not return. But the BBC said it was talking to Neil about a new BBC One interview show.
In total, 520 jobs will go, from a workforce of around 6,000 people.
Most of the changes will take place behind the scenes.
The corporation's head of news, Fran Unsworth, said the BBC would concentrate on fewer stories, with journalists pooled in centralised teams, rather than working for specific programmes.
The BBC News Channel and BBC World will continue to share some output in the mornings and evenings, as they have done during the Covid-19 crisis, although they will remain separate channels.
Radio 4 programme In Business will close, as will the Business Live page on the BBC News Website, while bespoke business news bulletins on the BBC News channel will be reduced.
On BBC World Service, World Update and The World This Week will end, while daily current affairs show Newsday will shorten in length.
The BBC also said it would close most of its social accounts to focus on core services like @bbcnews, @bbcworld and @bbcbreaking.
One of Neil's former programmes, lunchtime TV show Politics Live, will return four days a week after being rested during the pandemic.
More than 100 MPs and peers recently wrote to the BBC, arguing that axing it permanently would "seriously harm the ability of the BBC to scrutinise and explain" politics.
How will the BBC cover stories?
The BBC says it will have fewer reporters overall, but that a new commissioning system (which was partly implemented during the Covid-19 crisis) will make sure coverage is better co-ordinated.
More interviews will be conducted by Skype, Zoom and other video technologies, meaning there's less reliance on satellite trucks and radio cars.
A new original journalism team will also be created, incorporating several staff from the Victoria Derbyshire show, to pursue under-reported and exclusive stories. There will also be a greater focus on digital storytelling.
Unsworth said Covid-19 had "changed all of our lives" and had also "led us to re-evaluate exactly how we operate as an organisation".
She said: "Our operation has been underpinned by the principles we set out earlier this year - fewer stories, more targeted and with more impact. For BBC News to thrive, and for us to continue to serve all our audiences, we have to change."
After the announcement, the corporation revealed that legal correspondent Clive Coleman has decided to leave the BBC at the end of the year.
Why are the cuts being made?
The BBC announced in 2016 that it needed to save £800m, with around £80m of that figure coming from News.
Just over £40m - around half of the savings required - has been found over the past four years.
In January, the corporation announced plans to close 450 jobs, as well as programmes like BBC Two's highly-regarded Victoria Derbyshire show.
At the same time, the BBC delayed a decision to end free TV licences for the over-75s. That contributed to a further budget shortfall, meaning that the number of proposed job losses in news has increased by 70 posts.
Neil has been one of the BBC's top political broadcasters over the past two decades on shows like This Week and Daily Politics.
The Andrew Neil Show began in autumn 2019 in the run-up to the general election and the UK's departure from the European Union. It included interviews with most party leaders, but Prime Minister Boris Johnson did not appear - leading the host to controversially deliver an on-air ultimatum.
Announcing the latest cuts, the BBC said: "We remain committed to Andrew Neil's in-depth interviews (as well as the Budget, US Election and other Specials).
"The Andrew Neil Show will not be returning but we're in discussions about a new interview series on BBC One."
Neil had previously told the Radio Times he feared he would become "surplus to requirements" as the BBC made cutbacks.
Today we have fresh details on the radical experiment that BBC News announced in January.
Two big things have changed because of coronavirus. It has accentuated the BBC's financial strain, and shown a different way of working is possible. Both help account for the rise in likely redundancies.
The fact that Politics Live will come back for four days a week will appease many in Westminster - but the loss of The Andrew Neil Show will have the opposite effect. That show was originally commissioned because of an intervention by Tony Hall, but he is leaving as director general in September.
The BBC says Neil's in-depth interviews are still key to its coverage, and they would like to find a slot on BBC One for those interviews.
There is no one correct way to conduct interviews. The right approach depends on the interviewer, the interviewee, and the context.
But in one particular style - forensic, unrelenting scrutiny and interrogation of those in power - Neil is the best in the business.
His talks with the BBC are far from resolved. Two fresh proposals have run aground. He will no longer do Politics Live - but has been approached by other broadcasters.
What's the reaction?
Broadcasting union Bectu said it would hold BBC management to account and seek to avoid compulsory redundancies.
"BBC News is one of the most trusted brands at home and abroad. In an era of fake news and during an unprecedented health crisis this trust in a public service broadcaster is critical," said Bectu head, Philippa Childs.
"The government needs to take back responsibility for free licence fees for the over-75s, providing precious resources that would allow BBC News to continue to provide its world-leading range of news broadcasting."
Wearing face masks is “strongly encouraged” in all confined public spaces where you come into contact with strangers, according to government guidance today that deepened confusion over rules on covering up.
Downing Street said there would be an exemption for sandwich shops from laws requiring coverings in retail, contradicting the health secretary, Matt Hancock, who said the rule would apply for takeaway food.
Mr Hancock also said that masks would not work in offices while pubs and restaurants appear not to be covered by the advice.
The Andrew Neil Show will disappear from BBC schedules as part of cuts to the corporation's news operation.
The political discussion programme had already been off the air during the Covid-19 crisis and will not return. But the BBC said it was talking to Neil about a new BBC One interview show.
In total, 520 jobs will go, from a workforce of around 6,000 people.
Most of the changes will take place behind the scenes.
The corporation's head of news, Fran Unsworth, said the BBC would concentrate on fewer stories, with journalists pooled in centralised teams, rather than working for specific programmes.
The BBC News Channel and BBC World will continue to share some output in the mornings and evenings, as they have done during the Covid-19 crisis, although they will remain separate channels.
Radio 4 programme In Business will close, as will the Business Live page on the BBC News Website, while bespoke business news bulletins on the BBC News channel will be reduced.
On BBC World Service, World Update and The World This Week will end, while daily current affairs show Newsday will shorten in length.
The BBC also said it would close most of its social accounts to focus on core services like @bbcnews, @bbcworld and @bbcbreaking.
One of Neil's former programmes, lunchtime TV show Politics Live, will return four days a week after being rested during the pandemic.
More than 100 MPs and peers recently wrote to the BBC, arguing that axing it permanently would "seriously harm the ability of the BBC to scrutinise and explain" politics.
How will the BBC cover stories?
The BBC says it will have fewer reporters overall, but that a new commissioning system (which was partly implemented during the Covid-19 crisis) will make sure coverage is better co-ordinated.
More interviews will be conducted by Skype, Zoom and other video technologies, meaning there's less reliance on satellite trucks and radio cars.
A new original journalism team will also be created, incorporating several staff from the Victoria Derbyshire show, to pursue under-reported and exclusive stories. There will also be a greater focus on digital storytelling.
Unsworth said Covid-19 had "changed all of our lives" and had also "led us to re-evaluate exactly how we operate as an organisation".
She said: "Our operation has been underpinned by the principles we set out earlier this year - fewer stories, more targeted and with more impact. For BBC News to thrive, and for us to continue to serve all our audiences, we have to change."
Why are the cuts being made?
The BBC announced in 2016 that it needed to save £800m, with around £80m of that figure coming from News.
Just over £40m - around half of the savings required - has been found over the past four years.
In January, the corporation announced plans to close 450 jobs, as well as programmes like BBC Two's highly-regarded Victoria Derbyshire show.
At the same time, the BBC delayed a decision to end free TV licences for the over-75s. That contributed to a further budget shortfall, meaning that the number of proposed job losses in news has increased by 70 posts.
Neil has been one of the BBC's top political broadcasters over the past two decades on shows like This Week and Daily Politics.
The Andrew Neil Show began in autumn 2019 in the run-up to the general election and the UK's departure from the European Union. It included interviews with most party leaders, but Prime Minister Boris Johnson did not appear - leading the host to controversially deliver an on-air ultimatum.
Announcing the latest cuts, the BBC said: "We remain committed to Andrew Neil's in-depth interviews (as well as the Budget, US Election and other Specials).
"The Andrew Neil Show will not be returning but we're in discussions about a new interview series on BBC One."
Neil had previously told the Radio Times he feared he would become "surplus to requirements" as the BBC made cutbacks.
Today we have fresh details on the radical experiment that BBC News announced in January.
Two big things have changed because of coronavirus. It has accentuated the BBC's financial strain, and shown a different way of working is possible. Both help account for the rise in likely redundancies.
The fact that Politics Live will come back for four days a week will appease many in Westminster - but the loss of The Andrew Neil Show will have the opposite effect. That show was originally commissioned because of an intervention by Tony Hall, but he is leaving as director general in September.
The BBC says Neil's in-depth interviews are still key to its coverage, and they would like to find a slot on BBC One for those interviews.
There is no one correct way to conduct interviews. The right approach depends on the interviewer, the interviewee, and the context.
But in one particular style - forensic, unrelenting scrutiny and interrogation of those in power - Neil is the best in the business.
His talks with the BBC are far from resolved. Two fresh proposals have run aground. He will no longer do Politics Live - but has been approached by other broadcasters.
What's the reaction?
Broadcasting union Bectu said it would hold BBC management to account and seek to avoid compulsory redundancies.
"BBC News is one of the most trusted brands at home and abroad. In an era of fake news and during an unprecedented health crisis this trust in a public service broadcaster is critical," said Bectu head, Philippa Childs.
"The government needs to take back responsibility for free licence fees for the over-75s, providing precious resources that would allow BBC News to continue to provide its world-leading range of news broadcasting."
