Letters: Test section would have avoided this tram chaos

For instance, who would have embarked upon this project without having seen one of the streets or sections up and running first of all before embarking on other sections?

By this means, lessons are learned, staff are trained up, contractual issues sorted and purpose-built machinery for laying rail lines efficiently is developed.

This would have saved hundreds of workmen and digging machines standing by idly for weeks, as was the case when single sections of the Princes Street tram rails were being manhandled into place.

And since the idea of tramways is that the weight is spread over the rails, easing pressure on the roads, like using a ladder to walk over ice, how come every inch of the Edinburgh roads, hammered for decades by juggernaut lorries, have had to be dug up and re-laid in case the utilities might suffer damage?

This is absurd. Other than if you are a contractor taking advantage of open-ended penalty-clause benefits.

I am inclined to say this is what happens when you involve politicians and civil servants in these projects. In terms of embarrassment, this could well outdo the unfinished Pantheon on Calton Hill.

Alex Lawson, Greenwell Park, Glenrothes

Law could clash with human rights

SO THE Scottish Government has passed a Bill to remove the "right to buy" from new tenants. Can we assume that those drafting the legislation, and MSPs considering and passing it in Parliament, ran this provision past the Human Rights Act 1998?

Hasn't this new law just created a sub-class which has fewer tenant rights than others? How can this possibly be fair?

When "right to buy" was introduced, it was universal. This new law does not remove the right universally, so isn't it inherently discriminatory?

Of course, government may claim that you sign away your rights by a condition of contract, that you do so through choice.

However, such a contract condition would have to be "fair" and comply with Human Rights. Wouldn't any such condition which contravenes Human Rights be legally deemed unfair and therefore unenforceable? And wouldn't forcing you to accept this unfair condition also be a breach by government of Human Rights?

If the government wanted to remove "right to buy", shouldn't it have done so universally? And what party in government would get re-elected by doing that?

Jim Taylor, The Murrays Brae, Edinburgh

Don't fall for lies on independence

ED Miliband said UK taxpayers dug deep to bail out the Scottish economy, and that the independence argument was a non-starter. Not so.

An independent Scotland would be neutral and therefore would not require the huge costs of an army, navy or air force.

Secondly, an independent Scotland would have built up an oil fund akin to Norway's which would be a cushion against global recession.

Thirdly, Scotland's banks would not be permitted to squander billions on risky foreign deals like the ones which created the recession.

Scotland needs to wake up and smell the lies being told by Tory and Labour failure.

Trevor Swistchew, Victor Park Terrace, Edinburgh

Keeping the Faith with star Paloma

I WAS excited for a brief moment when I saw my favourite singer's name in an Evening News headline. Unfortunately "Sugar loses faith with Paloma after outburst" (News, November 4), was the only way I was able to see the words Paloma and Faith in my local paper.

That's a pity, because she put on a great show at the Corn Exchange.

It's a little ironic that while the Paloma in the News story is a wannabe in the Alan Sugar reality TV show, unlike wannabes in the X Factor, Paloma Faith is the real deal.

Robbie George, Clermiston