Political column – February 18

But come on, all hail Queen Nicola.

Whatever you think of her, and she stirs such strong emotions that you don't have to look far to come across the most appalling abuse online, fair dos, she's been one of the most significant figures of recent times in UK politics.

She is a leader who has led. Under her, the SNP has ridden the crest of a wave. The question now is whether her departure will mark its high water mark. That's the price that is paid for having a leader who has been so dominant for so long on the Scottish political stage.

The evident dismay of the SNP at her decision to quit her role will have more to it than understandable regret at the loss of a successful leader. It is going to be difficult to find somebody who has such an impact, and in any event her replacement will need time to blossom in the role and forge a place in public consciousness.

The exits left of Jacinda Ardern and, now, Nicola Sturgeon, have various things in common. Both have been leaders of small nations on the world stage, yet the announcements of their departures received massive coverage, reflecting their high profiles.

Jacinda said she "no longer had enough in the tank." Nicola Sturgeon cited waning energy levels as a factor in her decision to step down.

Both are icons, personality cult politicians, powerful women admired and venerated for their skills and for what they represented. Although not by everybody, obviously.

Even though Jacinda Jong-un Ardern held an entire nation hostage, it was all right because being a libertarian she was coming from a libertarian place. She did it for the good of her people.

Sturgeon has been clever, effective, a good communicator (if Liz Truss had been half as good in this respect, she might still be in Number 10), and generally surefooted, despite some recent missteps in the transgender minefield.

They are qualities which have made her an impressive leader, with a track record of electoral success and, as she has pointed out herself, public approval ratings other politicians would give their right arms for.

Under her SNP tenure, independence, that patriotic dream for many proud Scots – around half, judging by the polls – has seemed to move tantalisingly closer, frustrated only by the likes of big bad Boris and similar democracy deniers at Westminster who won't allow a new referendum.

That is a narrative which of course adds to Scottish indignation and therefore their desire to control their own destiny.

Despite all the guff spouted about policies being more important than personalities, if you replace a personality cult politician with a politician who does not capture the public's attention, for good or ill, in quite the same way, it is likely to prove a backward step in enthusing the electorate.

A new leader also raises the prospect of the SNP's core aspiration coming under more critical scrutiny.

With Nicola Sturgeon, I do wonder whether English interviewers have laboured under the handicap of English guilt, a feeling that they are representing an oppressor asking questions of the oppressed.

At least Jacinda and Nicola have had the luxury of departing in a manner of their choosing, at a time of their choosing, something being denied Jeremy Corbyn.

Sir Keir Starmer, his successor as Labour leader, has ruled that Mr Corbyn will not be allowed to stand as a Labour candidate in the next general election.

This can be seen as part of Sir Keir's cunning but simple plan for power. It is to transform the Labour Party into the Conservative Party, but without the birthday cake.

From time to time Sir Keir has given a glimpse of how Labour under his leadership would govern, and a keynote speech a few weeks ago unveiled his "take back control" agenda in which local communities would be granted devolved powers.

It's ironic then that his diktat on Jeremy Corbyn is a decision which is centralised, autocratic, high-handed and deprives local Labour members in Islington North of any say in the matter.

Not exactly practising what he preaches, is it?