Analysis
The fall-out from yesterday's ruling on the right of prisoners to vote is likely to be as important politically as financially.

It is clear from the unanimous 29-page ruling of Lords Abernethy, Nimmo Smith and Emslie that there was sufficient opportunity to avert the present situation which sees May's Scottish elections now incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The UK government knew there was a problem in late-2005. It accepted the reserved law had to be changed at Westminster and had the time to change it. But it repeatedly failed to act.

Instead, after blaming the complexity of the issue for a delay, it only started consulting on reform last month.

Now Edinburgh is exposed to possible electoral chaos and massive claims for damages from prisoners.

It has also provided an open goal to the SNP, who can claim Scotland's interests are being neglected within the UK.

Kenny MacAskill, the SNP justice spokesman, said the ruling proved Westminster was not standing up for Scots. "We need an SNP government with a real commitment to promoting Scottish interests," he said.

Margaret Mitchell, Tory justice spokeswoman, last night wrote to First Minister Jack McConnell demanding to know why action was not taken earlier.

"The Labour-Liberal Democrat executive should have foreseen this. Instead it is crisis management again . . . 99 days before the Scottish parliamentary elections."

For Labour, Inverclyde MSP Duncan McNeil said letting prisoners vote was "crazy".

Scotland Office Minister David Cairns said the judgment was "not unexpected", but added: "We do not believe that the declaration will affect the operation of the Scottish Parliament elections."

The current law is enshrined in the 1983 Representation of the People Act which says convicted prisoners - but not those on remand - are incapable of voting.

In 2001, John Hirst, an English prisoner serving life for manslaughter, challenged the ban, claiming it breached his human rights - in particular, Article 3 of the ECHR which ensures "the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature".

The High Court, the Court of Appeal and House of Lords ruled against him, but in 2003 the European Court of Human Rights agreed his rights had been breached.

In light of the ruling, the UK government accepted it would have to act, and during 2006 promised to publish a consultation paper.

Running parallel with the Hirst case was one involving Scottish prisoner William Smith, jailed for five years for a drugs offence. In 2003 he challenged a refusal to admit him to the electoral register.

After a Sheriff Court refusal, he appealed to the Court of Session.

In yesterday's ruling, they rejected much of his appeal, but, crucially, issued a formal declarator asserting the elections would be ECHR-incompatible in light of the Hirst judgment.

The judges ruled: "We fully understand why the government does not at this stage wish to rush . . . but the fact remains that the Scottish parliamentary election in May 2007 will take place in a manner which is not ECHR-compliant."

Navraj Galeigh, a public law expert at Edinburgh University, said he expected a legal challenge to the elections, but added he would be "astonished" if it succeeded.