Lord Hardie has examined why the Edinburgh tram project incurred delays, cost more than originally budgeted and, through reductions in scope, delivered significantly less than projected. He and his team have forensically examined voluminous evidence and his report leaves no doubt that responsibility rests squarely with the City of Edinburgh Council and its arms-length company, TIE, and Scottish ministers, most notably John Swinney, MSP.

It is infuriating, therefore, that immediate political reaction to his report was either to express anger at the time Lord Hardie has taken and the cost of the inquiry itself; or to deflect attention from his findings by “talking up” politicians’ perceived benefit of the trams; or, in the case of Mairi McAllan, MSP, to suggest that “the evidence heard does not support the conclusion drawn.” Such reaction is arrogant and completely unacceptable.

The clue to Lord Hardie’s inquiry lies in the word, “public”. He has, on the public’s behalf attributed responsibility for the debacle and made recommendations. Such was the level of officials’ and politicians’ ineptitude and/or deceit that he has deemed it necessary to recommend civil and/or criminal sanctions against those who engage in such behaviour in future in an attempt to protect the public purse. Politicians should immediately have expressed humility and accepted accountability for their and their officials’ conduct throughout the project, which led to the waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ pounds. They should commit to implementing this recommendation, which has the potential to transform the way in which future megaprojects are assessed and force politicians to explain why they often give preference to “sexy” projects, regardless of the scale of risk or value for money.

The question is: do enough of our politicians have the humility and decency to accept that the taxpayer has had enough of their costly malfeasance and that they must support the implementation of this recommendation?

Alison Bourne, Haselbury Plucknett, Somerset

Government response sadly predictable

The response of the Scottish Government to the findings of the inquiry into the Edinburgh tram project (“City tram scheme had ‘litany of avoidable failures’, inquiry finds”, The Herald, September 20) is so SNP and so predictable.

The first reaction of the Government is not to offer apologies for the delays and increased costs but rather to find any ways and means to deflect the extensive criticism directed at it. On this occasion the SNP could not blame Westminster, a fairly well-worn route with regard to other projects which have not gone entirely to plan . So what could they come up with? I have no doubt, before going public, that the arguments put forward by way of deflection - inquiry delays, costs of the inquiry, and certain findings lacking evidence to support them - were well rehearsed behind the scenes.

Will those within the SNP with responsibilities for the creation of the tramways scandal ever be made properly accountable? If the ferries fiasco is anything to go by, I would counsel that one should not hold one’s breath waiting for that eventuality to come to pass.

Ian W Thomson, Lenzie

What about the waste of Westminster?

Guy Stenhouse is correct about ferry procurement being a scandal (“Wealth tax would be a self-inflicted wound of great stupidity”, The Herald, September 20). But why does he stop there? Britain is awash with much more serious fiscal affronts.

PFI procurement lost billions to fraud, with no “blue tents”. HS2 may cost over£100billion, only reach Birmingham and terminate seven miles from London. This was supposed to “level up” but has ignored Scotland, Wales and the North of England. The Ajax military vehicle has cost an absolute fortune with no return. Nuclear power stations vastly over budget and years late. The damaging Brexit shambles has no end. Refurbishment of Westminster (one building) may cost up to £26billion - value for money? I think not.

A British nuclear armed submarine has just undergone the longest deep-sea patrol in British naval history because of serious maintenance issues with naval warships/submarines, with a deleterious effect on crew and families. And so on and on, costing us all a fortune, but Mr Stenhouse can see no further than Holyrood.

GR Weir, Ochiltree

Caution needed on youthful decisions

Jill Stephenson is right to say that the woman who claimed to have been groomed and sexually assaulted by Russell Brand has made one of the best arguments for not lowering the voting age to 16 (Letters, September 19) because of the woman’s honest admission of naivety and vulnerability at that age.

It is also one of the best arguments for caution in giving puberty blockers to adolescent children. If some are vulnerable and naive at 16 then is it not possible that young people who identity as transgender may be equally naive desiring to undergo radical procedures and medication before they are fully mature ?

It seems that society accepts that children know what is best for themselves and their bodies before they even finish secondary education or are eligible to vote. And parents have to accept their choices which will be irreversible and therefore life-changing and possibly regretted in later years.

Irene Munro, Conon Bridge

Time for Scots to come home

Surely Rosemary Goring's column (“Kuenssberg documentaries show a septic tank is more wholesome than Westminster”, The Herald, September 21) was meant to be ironic. First, she talks about Laura Kuenssberg's “impressive contacts book” and how Kuenssberg herself seemed “genuinely disturbed” at things she had observed or had revealed to her.

Later Ms Goring talks about "how our democracy works". Answer: it doesn't, nor is our press corps fit for purpose. The place for Kuenssberg to have demonstrated her concerns is not in a three-part documentary three years after the fact but by holding the politicians to account as events are actually happening.

Professor Bill Whyte is absolutely correct (Letters, September 21). Our democracy is not only unsatisfactory in the minds of the people it's meant to serve, we have a lot to learn from other countries about how to make it truly representative and giving citizens their power to make a difference. We can start by reviving Scotland's written constitution; 83 Scots laws are still extant, even after the 1707 Act of Union, and they demonstrate that in Scotland sovereignty lies with the people, not, as in England, with the monarch who “lends” their sovereignty to Westminster.

In other words, just like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, we've had the power to “come home” all along – we just have to use it.

Majorie Ellis Thompson, Edinburgh