Mills and McCartney

I couldn't agree more with Daniel Finkelstein:

But I just have to ask - why does Heather Mills get £24 million for being married to McCartney for four years?

Did she play a role in making the money? No, he earned his fortune before he met her.

Did she sacrifice her earnings or earning power while standin' by her man? No, she is certainly more marketable now than before she met McCartney. And any deterioration that has taken place in the last year has been as a result of her behaviour since the divorce.

Does she need £600,000 a year? No, nobody needs £600,000 a year. There might have been a case of her having become accustomed to it during their marriage, except for this - she was only married to him for a very short time.

Isn't it for the child? There is a separate sum - £35,000 plus nanny and school fees - for the child.

The question has nothing to do with Ms Mills seeming to be a spectacularly unpleasant woman. Even if she had been a veritable saint, it seems ridiculous that she - or anyone else - should be handed such a sum for four years of marriage to a man whose success and fortune had nothing whatsoever to do with their marriage.

One might suggest that it is Sir Paul who deserved compensation for four years of marriage to Heather Mills. But that would be ungallant, so best not.