IT was a rallying cry which shook the corridors of power and had the men of Government quaking in their Victorian boots.
A century ago, the shout of "Votes for Women" was once enough to have hundreds branded terrorists and thrown in jail, where they were subjected to the most brutal of treatment.
It was also a slogan which changed the course of British history and paved the way for women to cast their ballots in national elections for the first time.
And while it seems strange looking back from more enlightened times, that was a right which came only after a long and bitter battle between women and the state.
Spearheaded first by the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, the movement took a hard edge in 1903 when Emmeline Pankhurst founded a new organisation, the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU).
READ MORE: Ministers consider pardon for Suffragettes
However, that was not votes for all women - but instead a privileged few, who owned property and were aged over 30.
Suffragette expert Sarah Pedersen, Professor of Communication and Media at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, explains: "The suffragettes were not actually calling for all women to get the vote. They wanted some to get the vote and then for those women to go on and campaign for ways to change things for their poorer, working-class sisters."
To get the vote, the WSPU adopted many tactics, but the most headline grabbing was their policy of direct action, involving vandalism, arson and bombings.
Letter boxes were burned, while shop and business windows were smashed during demonstrations. Targets included places where the rich, and especially wealthy men, would gather with cricket pavilions and horse racing tracks burnt and destroyed.
In Scotland golf courses were particular targets of the Suffragettes, who used acid to write 'Votes for Women' on the greens of many clubs in constituencies belonging to members of the ruling Liberal party.
The authorities response was draconian, with more than 1,000 women arrested and put into jail where they were denied the status of political prisoners.
When many went on hunger strike, they were force fed with a tube pushed either down their throat or their nose, leaving many with poor health for the rest of their lives.
In the end, it was the conflagration of the First World War which ushered in the greatest change. In 1914 the Suffragettes suspended their campaign in the national interest, and many women found themselves taking up roles in the workplace vacated by men departing to the front lines in France.
When the conflict came to an end, there was little appetite on the behalf of the government to deny women further, or to return to the violent days of the past.
READ MORE: Family of Suffragette leader mark International Women's Day
Prof Pedersen explained: "The Government would say that the Act was a thank-you for women's tireless service during the war, but it's not as clear-cut as that.
"The Suffragettes were not going to go away and there was a fear that violent protest would resume now that the war was over."
She added: "No Government wants to say it gave in because of damage to property and the threat of arson, and the suffragette were a terrorist organisation but in France women did all the jobs that British women did but did not campaign as forcefully, and they did not get the vote until 1945."
When the right to vote was granted in 1918, women were also allowed to stand for Parlament, although Constance Markievicz, the first female MP, did not take up her seat because she represented Sinn Féin.
Nancy Astor would be the first woman to be elected to the House of Commons to sit on the green benches, paving the way for the UK to see Margaret Thatcher become the first woman Prime Minister.
Yet, although 100 years have passed, the gender balance at Westminster has never reached parity, and it remains a matter for debate if women's fight for full equality has been achieved.
Professor Pedersen said: "What you have to understand is that the suffragettes were first-wave feminists, the second wave coming with women's liberation in the 1960s. It's been a continuous movement."
READ MORE: 20 women who blazed a trail across the 20th century
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here