When Barack Obama was first elected I remember thinking what a huge advance it was for racial equality. Then, a few days later, I realised my mistake. It would, of course, be a huge advance only when people thought of him as "the president" rather than "the first black president". I think that moment slipped by some time ago.

There is a parallel in Scotland. Soon, it seems, the leaders of the three main parties at Holyrood will be women, if Nicola Sturgeon succeeds Alex Salmond as she is expected to do. It will be momentous, an historical first.

But ask yourself when you last saw a headline about three main political parties being run by men? The answer: "Never." Being male and in charge is what is expected. It is the norm, a given, by definition not news.

So can we really pat ourselves on the back while women leaders of political parties remain a matter of comment? I don't think so.

But something of note took place during the referendum campaign that provides hope for the future engagement of women in Scottish politics. In all the sound and fury following the result, it has been overlooked. It is this: probably never before have women in Scotland felt their vote to be so powerful. Whatever their likes and dislikes, their hopes, their fears, the politicians responded.

Here's one example. Women were more likely to be lukewarm about Alex Salmond, so Nicola Sturgeon took on a more prominent role in persuading them to vote Yes. And another: women minded more than men about the NHS, so that became the focus of the campaign.

Throughout, the polls showed women being more reluctant than men to vote for independence. They were the key battleground. And so, in the end, it proved.

A post-referendum poll carried out by Lord Ashcroft showed 56 per cent of women voted No and 44 per cent voted Yes. If it was a victory for the No campaign, it was also a victory for the women's vote.

How often has that happened before in Scotland, when the impact of one woman, one vote has been so evident?

We witnessed small but important shifts. For example, the growing popularity of Ruth Davidson, who argued her case with clarity and passion. Also, in a country relatively recently at loggerheads over Section 28, there is a cheerful acceptance that Scottish Conservatives have as their leader a taekwondo enthusiast with a same-sex partner.

On a bigger scale, how often has there been a political campaign that engaged so many women who had never taken part in politics before? We also saw the rise of the influential group, Women for Independence.

Its founder Jeane Freeman, a former adviser to Jack McConnell, out-debated Andrew Neil on national television. She was clear, articulate and better informed. Twice she reminded him that she didn't speak for a political party. That is part of the success of the movement she has formed. Women like the ability to be part of a political forum that is not thirled to one party.

Just as some have found their voice through Mumsnet, many others have a desire to express their view and influence thinking about the issues that concern them.

It's a huge generalisation to say that it starts from the family, spreads to community and from there looks beyond. But there is a truth in it. Labour MSP Kezia Dugdale has called for Women for Independence to include No voters. She'd like a larger alliance to push for 50-50 male female representation in Holyrood and she may get her wish.

Next month, Women for Independence will meet to discuss the future. This includes laying more emphasis on the second part of their name: independence for women.

If the members find a way to take the movement forward without having independence as its objective, it could be a game-changing development in Scottish politics.

At present, 36 per cent of MSPs are women, which puts Scotland 13th in the international league table.(Westminster trails in at 58th.) With a woman leading each of the three main parties, could the moment be ripe for a move to parity. I wonder.

We know a lot of generalisations about how women will behave in power. We are told women are more risk averse. We're told that, if we had been better represented on the boards of banks, the crash could have been averted.

We know that a higher proportion of women are against nuclear weapons. We hear that women are less inclined than men to take a country to war. We expect that, if women were in charge, the political emphasis would favour legislation that helped family life, for example a shorter working week or provisions that would offer young mothers a choice about working or raising their children.

Is it true? Will this moment in history deliver such policies? Will the happy circumstance of having three female political leaders in Scotland in the immediate aftermath of women spelling out what matters to them in the referendum be all that we hope?

I want to be believe it will be so. However, I can't help recall that the only time we had a woman prime minister she filled her cabinet with men. She reconstructed British society to favour financial freedom over family. And she took us to war in the Falklands. I am, of course, speaking of Margaret Thatcher.

Not all women are like her. But we must also bear in mind that not all women are like any one personality type. My guess is that we will see in the parliament three distinct characters slugging it out according to their party divides. That doesn't stop me holding the aspiration that, sooner rather than later, we'll see more women entering parliament and parity of the sexes on the back benches.

It is a notion that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. It smacks of quotas. It raises questions about whether someone is in post because of their ability or because of their gender.

That always makes me smile. Historically, power has been restricted to men-only candidates without a murmur of protest that some were under-qualified.

Even today only 31 per cent of head teachers in Scottish secondary schools are women. The percentage shrinks to 15 for senior police officers and a derisory eight per cent of the FTSE 250 company directors in Scotland are women.

It is unintelligent as well as unjust to leave such a large pool of talent untapped.

I hope the referendum campaign has demonstrated as much to the women who got involved, who took part and found their voice.

Whichever side they favoured their increasing participation in Scottish politics can only be for the good.

The fact is that, until they occupy parliamentary seats in equal numbers with men, our society will not be properly and fairly represented.

And only when their presence in positions of power is such a given that it is no longer a matter of note will the issue of gender parity finally be laid to rest.