I READ Les Tocknell's letter (Review March 14) and wondered if I had previously read a different Review from that to which his letter referred (March 7).

Les stated that "Messrs Guyton, Preest and co (presumably Dan Winter in the same edition) peddle the same old line: that migration is a bad thing". I couldn't remember reading that but I my memory can fail, so I checked. It hadn't failed. None of the three even mentioned the word "migration". In fact, all of them referred to "immigration"; a very different thing. Talk about putting words in people's mouths!

Ignoring this faux pas, Les Tocknell then states his opinions.

Firstly he states that "...migration goes both ways with benefits to all." Oh dear. His timing was as unfortunate as that of P Young of Chepstow which started this thread (Review March 7) because the Migration Watch UK report came out this week showing immigration has cost us £22m per day over the last 17 years! £148 billion over that period. So no financial benefit to the UK.

Secondly, Les states: "If there are no jobs for young people in this country then they have considerable freedom to travel and work abroad as many do." Well, yes they do have that freedom. However government figures show the unemployment rate in the UK, where they speak the language but are unemployed is 7.2 per cent and the unemployment rate in the EU (including the UK) is 12.1 per cent.

Take the UK figures out and it goes higher. So the freedom to compete in a more difficult job market in a language different to your mother tongue exists but it is a bit like the freedom to fly. It's there but you'd have to be away with the birds to seriously think of doing it.

Les also raises the question "What will UKIP recommend if Scotland votes for independence?" I am not quite sure of the relevance nor I am I a spokesman for UKIP (perhaps they can respond on their own account) but it seems to me that there are two precursors to any recommendation following such a vote.

Firstly, the UK government would have to behave democratically (not something it is renowned for doing) and accept the wishes of the people of Scotland (although why the rest of the union should not have a say beats me) and allow separation.

Secondly, if that happened, it seems to me that a signatory to all those European treaties, ie the United Kingdom, would no longer exist.

Using a contract law parallel, EU membership could not continue unless the contract (the treaties in this case) were novated (legally assigned) to the new entity that the then disUnited Kingdom had become.

It appears that there are so many "ifs" and "buts" in this speculation that I would be surprised if the main parties, even with their massive legal resources on tap would make a recommendation at this time, let alone a small (albeit growing) party like UKIP. However it will be interesting to read their response if they deign to make one.

Finally, Les says that without migration we would all be Neanderthals. Well we now know that Neanderthals existed here 200,000 years ago but they left to go south when it got cold.

Of course, we were not an island then as we were connected to the European mainland by Doggerland. Later Homo­sapiens (wise men) arrived here. Neanderthals came back too.

I suspect there are many today who wish the Neanderthals had stayed on the mainland. Looking at the way the European mainland is moving towards financial extinction, I suspect most probably did.

– Tom Atkinson, Lydney.