Question:How damaged do you think the Scottish Labour Party is by the events of the last few weeks?

Liddell:I don' think the Scottish Labour Party is damaged by the events of the past few weeks. I think that was borne out by the events of the weekend with the election of Jack McConnell as our candidate for First Minister and as leader of the Labour Party in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament.

I think those who are enemies of devolution seized on the opportunities given to them over the past few weeks to try to undermine the devolution settlement. But that settlement was hard won and the people of Scotland are not as superficial as to conclude that the events of the past couple of weeks are an inherent flaw in devolution - human frailty is with everyone and these were largely issues about human frailty.

Question:In recent years there have been reports, or at least perceptions, of dodgy goings on in the Scottish Labour heartlands. How do you think the party can rid itself of that image?

Liddell:Nobody has ever proved dodgy goings on in Labour heartlands. I was the victor for the Monklands East by-election in 1994 and at that time there were allegations of corruption in Monklands district council.

There was a public inquiry and there was no evidence found of alleged corruption. The Labour Party took action against councillors because the Labour Party disapproved of the way that they were conducting some aspects of council business, but what some people find it difficult to live with is the fact that people support Labour in Scotland and it's more sour grapes about the extent of Labour support in Scotland than anything that can consciously be pointed to.

Question:Even if that is the case isn't it a problems of perception. And don't you think you need to clean up the perception, if not the reality?

Liddell:I believe that the Scottish electorate are much more sophisticated than many of the commentators are.

They recognise, they know the people who live and work in the communities and represent them and they are so used to this constant attack on Labour politicians and this implication that there is sleaze around.

Scotland is a small country - it is possible to know a lot of people in Scotland and get a very good handle on what is going on. And there are the opponents of devolution primarily on the right, in the separatist parties, who seek to undermine not just the Labour Party but the devolution settlement.

But they are usually seen through - and if you look to the nature of the result that we had in June of this year, it's obvious that the Scottish people support clearly where we are coming from and where we are going to.

Question:To what extent to you think Henry McLeish's downfall was a result of a trial by the media?

Liddell:Well, Henry McLeish took the decision himself that he wanted to resign because he had had enough, and I can understand that. His family was beginning to be affected quite adversely - both his children and his stepchildren were finding life very difficult indeed, and quite frankly, lots of people come to the point where they think there's more to life than undergoing this kind of attack.

But to have a mature democracy, we also need to have a mature media and I think in some respects over the past couple of weeks we've not the seen the Scottish media at its best.

Question:Do you think the media has exploited its position?

Liddell:I think in Scotland there is a very active media market. Readership of newspapers is higher in Scotland than in any other parts of the UK. As a consequence there are more titles in Scotland and there are also more people allocated to covering the Scottish Parliament and I think sometimes they get stuck for stories.

Question:What would your message be to the Scottish media?

Liddell:A mature democracy requires a mature media and I don't think that the cause of freedom of the press is enhanced by some of the pettiness and quite frankly unethical performances that we've seen over the past few of weeks.

Question:What's at stake if the media doesn't heed your warning?

Liddell:I think people lose credibility in the media and I speak as someone who was a journalist and who has a great respect for the craft and will fight to my dying breath for freedom of the press. But freedom of the press needs to be about big issues, not unsubstantiated allegations and, quite frankly, muck-raking.

Question:Can you point any examples which you would say were irresponsible?

Liddell:Well I'm not going to get into naming newspapers and who did things right and did things wrong.

I think there are standards that have to be maintained in covering stories and sometimes, particularly over the last few days, sometimes we've seen those very high standards slipping a little.

Question:Why do you think it's important to review the size of the Scottish Parliament?

Liddell:Because we said so during the passage of the Scotland Act and John Reid reiterated that in the Scottish Grand Committee about 18 months ago that we have said, as the act was going through, that we would be pragmatic about the functioning of the Scottish Parliament and I think this is the appropriate time to do it.

There's a Boundary Commission review into the Westminster seats and it's the right time to look and see what changes, if any, are required in the Scotland Act.

Question:Do you accept that there's very little appetite in the Scottish Parliament for any reduction - indeed if you look at the way the committees are working there's a need for more MSPs.

Liddell:I'm not going to pre-judge the consultation.

Question:Do you anticipate that the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster will come into effect before the next general election?

Liddell:Well the Boundary Commission has to report to me by 2006 and it's really a question of when they come back with their report.

Question:What if it lands on your desk in January or February [of 2002]?

Liddell:I don't do crystal ball readings - it's a question of when the commissioners complete their report and also there will be a number of public inquiries as a result, as there always are, the result of the boundary commissioners' review. And it's not my job to do the Mystic Meg bit.

Question:If they report in February, do you accept that it will be difficult to avoid implementing the reduction before the next General Election?

Liddell:I don't answer hypothetical questions. They have to report by 2006 and if it's a wet Monday or the third Thursday in February then it might delay the report. I'm not going to get into all of that. These are important matters of the constitution and I think they have to be dealt with in the proper way.

Question:Do you think it's right that we cut the number of MPs in Westminster?

Liddell:Yes.

Question:What's the rationale for this?

Liddell:Well you have to go back in history as to why there are smaller constituency sizes in Scotland compared with the United Kingdom. It was because we had to deal with separate Scottish legislation and also because of geography. I think with the presence of the Scottish Parliament there is now no longer that argument and, as it says in the Scotland Act, the constituencies should become roughly the same size.

Question:Do you think then that it was an error to link seats at Holyrood and seats at Westminster?

Liddell:You're asking me to pre-judge the consultation and I'm not prepared to do that.

Question:Do you think it was right that it was done?

Liddell:You're asking me to pre-judge the consultation. We said we would review the operation of the Scotland Act, and that's what we're doing in relation to the number of MSPs.

Question:Do you think that the Scottish public fully understands your role?

Liddell:Yes and I think the general election showed that it was clear that we fought in the theme of partnership that the Scottish people want partnership.

They don't want division, they don't want confrontation, they want to see a Labour government at Westminster delivering a sound economy and sound public finances, and they want to see a Scottish executive delivering change in health, education, drugs, transport and issues that affect them.

Question:What is the rationale for maintaining seven Ministers, inclusing three Secretaries of State, for the devolved parts of the UK? Whatever happened to the "Minister for the Isles"?

Liddell:Devolution isn't "one size fits all". Each part of the devolution settlement - for Scotland, for Wales, for Northern ireland - involves a different split of repsonsibilities between Westminster and the devolved administration in question and, quite evidently, a different set of issues.

As Secretary of State for Scotland and custodian of our devolution settlement I am fully stretched - I've a busy diary and a full in-tray - and I'm sure my two counterparts would say the same. I should also point out that the three Ministers in the Scotland Office include a UK Law Officer - Lynda Clark, the Advocate General - with particular responsibilities for advising the Government on Scots Law.Question:Do you think you have a high enough profile in Scotland.

Liddell:I don't bother about things like personal profile. I am much more interested in what I can actually deliver for people.

Question:Isn't there a case that you should be an ambassador for Westminster in Scotland - and if you're profile is diminished then the importance of Westminster is diminished as a result?

Liddell:I don't think there's any evidence that I have a low profile in Scotland.

Question:What do you think about the case for reviewing not just the number but also the role of Scottish MPs at Westminster?

Liddell:You mean revisit the British constitution? I see no argument for that at all.

Question:There is a significant body of Labour MPs in England who believe that should be the case.

Liddell:Name one.

Question:Austin Mitchell.

Liddell:Well Austin Mitchell has a very unique take on the world in general but we are members of the United Kingdom Parliament and I believe in the United Kingdom and Scottish Members of Parliament make a great contribution to United Kingdom issues and I will be taking through this week parts of the anti terrorist legislation and that affects every part of the United Kingdom and I as a United Kingdom cabinet minister will play my part in that.

Question:Do you think the Scottish Parliament has been in some ways held back by the fact that so few of your colleagues were willing to put their money where there mouths were by actually standing for it?

Liddell:No. I think it is excellent that we have a new group of people, by and large, coming into Scottish politics, and indeed that was one of the reasons why we changed the rules within the parties to try to encourage more women involved in the Scottish political process.

And people have to take their own decisions as to the areas that they're interested in, and they also consult with their constituency parties and I think it's a facile point. I think we've seen a situation develop where lots of people who hitherto had been disenfranchised by a remoteness are able to play a part in how Scotland is governed and administered.

Question:Do you think there is a role for changing what Scottish MPs do - giving them more committee work, or beefing up the Grand Committee - to try and ensure they are fully occupied.

Liddell:Why? Scottish MPs are fully occupied at Westminster. They sit on standing committees, select committees, they are active in Chamber - they are just as busy as any other MP.

They may not be watched as closely by the media because the Scottish media are not as much around at Westminster as they used to be.

Question:They don't tend to be in the chamber as much for health questions as they are for Scottish questions.

Liddell:Well that would be bizarre for them to be in health questions - but quite frankly they are in health debates. There is a debate coming up next Tuesday on NHS practitioners that Scottish ministers will be taking part in.

Question:Why would it be bizarre [to attend health questions]?

Liddell:Because it's devolved.

Question:But English MPs ask questions at Scottish questions?

Liddell:Yes, but quite frankly the suggestion, particularly by people who don't actually know anything about what MPs do, let alone Scottish MPs, that they don't have a full workload is quite frankly absolutely bizarre.

If you look at the number in standing committees, I think on the Proceeds of Crime Bill there are five or six Scots, there are Scots on finance bills, there are Scots on every piece of legislation, and Scots also have very heavy constituent workloads as well.

Question:Do you believe the Cabinet is operating in the manner in which it is expected?

Liddell:Yes.

Question:But was there anything in Mo Mowlam's criticisms?

Liddell:Mo is no longer part of the Cabinet - she doesn't know what the present Cabinet is like. I was only in previous Cabinets for a very short period of time but this present Cabinet is a Cabinet of people who are very like-minded and who have a great respect for the work that the Prime Minister is doing, particularly in the War Against Terrorism.

Question:So her account of the Cabinet "as was" is not necessarily "daft" as John Prescott suggests?

Liddell:I was only in the previous Cabinet for a few weeks, but I'm part of the Cabinet now that is governing in the best interests of the United Kingdom in the international arena, and quite frankly the verdict of the British people on the performance of the last Cabinet took place in June. They did not find it wanting and, indeed, returned us with a landslide.

Question:To what extent do you think the current government has become too executive centred around someone within that executive who is in sole command?

Liddell:Well, that convoluted phrase means "leadership". We have a Prime Minister who leads from the front. That's what we need, that's what we want and that's what we've got.

Question:Even if it means that Cabinet Ministers think they are not being consulted?

Liddell:Which Cabinet members don't think they are being consulted?

Question:Mo Mowlam clearly thought that was the case.

Liddell:But Mo Mowlam is not a member of the present Cabinet.

Question:Do you think that the government must begin to campaign actively in favour of the euro in order to ensure that we get in there in the timescale which has been discussed?

Liddell:Well it's a question of whether or not it's in Britain's best economic interests. We've made it clear that we support a successful single currency, we've made it clear we see no constitutional or political bars to being a member of the single currency.

We also have made it clear that we wish that single currency well.

But we have to be absolutely certain that it's in Britain's best economic interests to be part of that single currency. And if you look at the Chancellor's five economic tests, one of the key elements of those five tests is the ability for our economy to withstand an external shock. Now we've had one of the most dramatic external shocks in economic history and we need to analyse the impact of that on the performance of our economy.

Question:That said, there is a case for saying that a more positive note should be struck on the single currency.

Liddell:Well the Prime Minister was very clear cut in what he said at the Labour Party Conference and he made a speech on Europe last week where he addressed these issues - but the issue has to be "is it in Britain's best economic interests?".

Question:Do you think the chancellor and the prime minister are absolutely at one on this issue?

Liddell:Yes.

Question:There's not even a difference of emphasis about when this process should start?

Liddell:I've seen all the fantasy about when there should be a referendum, about when there should be discussions about this. I was economic secretary to the Treasury at the time when the policy on the euro was being developed and we've not varied from that policy between then and now.

Question:Tony Blair has said that the government would begin its assessment of the five economic tests within the first two years of this parliament - has this started yet?

Liddell:Well you have to ask the Treasury about that but I believe it has. I'm not quite sure, but these are all elements for economic analysis that go on all the time anyway.

Question:It is said that politicians are successful when they identify an enemy - who is Labour's enemy in Scotland today?

Liddell:I think Labour's enemy in Scotland is the failure of people to address modernisation. We will always face enemies of a modernising and a radical government, sometimes from a point of view of the Unionists but also from the point of view of extreme separatists, and I think the real enemy of change and progress of change in Scotland are people who do not see that we must deliver better public services. To do that we must have a sound economy and to have a sound economy we have to be part of the United Kingdom.

Question:Which party represents the greatest threat?

Liddell:I don't differentiate between them. I think a Labour government is essential to this country and a Labour-led Scottish executive is essential for Scotland.

Question:Would you reject the title of 'Nat-basher in chief' then?

Liddell:I will take on anybody who tries to stop the progress that this government is trying to bring to the people of Scotland who most need it - who are those who desperately need a good health service, who are entitled to the best possible education, who require the menace of drugs be removed from their society. I'll take on the enemy wherever it comes, but, quite frankly, at the moment in Scotland we have a very strong, positive, tale to tell. And we are telling that tale.

Question:Do you think that Gordon Brown is too involved in the day-to-day running of Scottish Labour?

Liddell:Gordon Brown is a Scottish MP, and, as such, he has the same involvement in the running of the Scottish Party as I have.

Question:Does he try to wield too much influence?

Liddell:I'm not aware of it.

Question:Not at all?

Liddell:No.

Question:Would you say you were a positive role model to encourage women to get involved in the political process?

Liddell:Probably not. I came up in a process where the centre of government was 450 miles away and I had said for many years that I would not come to Westminster, and tragic circumstances meant that I came here following the death of John Smith.

I would say to women who are looking to have a career in politics, there are easier options perhaps than the ones I have, and I think the Scottish Parliament provides huge opportunities - and I think we are beginning to make some progress in modernising Westminster.To anyone who thought that my lifestyle or the lifestyle forced upon me was an acceptable one for a woman, I'd say we've have to change politics an awful lot more than that.

Question:What could be done in practical terms at Westminster to make it easier for women?

Liddell:Well I think slightly more attention to things like school holidays for example. I see absolutely no reason why we should rise in July which is a month later than the start of the Scottish school holidays and come back in October, usually in the week of Scottish half term.

I don't see why we can't have a more rational structure that allows us to rise in early July and come back in September. And that way, Scottish and English parents would be suited and I think we would be a much more business-like place as a consequence. I don't see any rationale for much of the work of government going on in the middle of the night.

Question:What message could the leaders of the Commons and Lords take from the Scottish parliament.

Liddell:Well the leader of the House and the leader of the House of Lords have both visited the Scottish Parliament and have both been very impressed with some of the procedures, not least the far more friendly hours.

But these are not easy issues to resolve because even in Scotland there are many people who cannot go home at night after they've attended the Scottish Parliament. And sometimes that is an impediment to people who'd rather work in the evenings for example. But there's a difference between working in the evenings and working in the middle of the night.

Question:What's next then?

Liddell:We are doing a big launch and initiative on the expat Scots, reaching out to mark St Andrews Day to say to them look, you've got this lovely image of Scotland - the Scotland that you left - but Scotland is now a very vibrant changed modern society. Come and be part of it, and be our ambassadors in other countries.

Question:Are you trying to win them back - or saying to them promote Scotland abroad?

Liddell:Both: because there are many areas where new skills and additional skills, and Scotland is always crying out for entrepreneurs, there are great opportunities in Scotland. But we also need people, many of whom are senior hitters throughout the world to help us open doors for Scottish business, inward investment, Scottish tourism, and getting the image of Scotland up there not just as a beautiful country with all the natural resources that we've got but with the changes in self confidence that has come with devolution.

Question:It may be a generalisation but do you think the expat Scots tend to be more Tartan-wearing and patriotic than average Scots at home?

Liddell:That's too much of a generalisation. I was in Milan on September 11 and I was with some of the expat community there. These are people who after nearly five or ten years, desperately would have liked a direct flight back home because some of them are actually based in Scotland and commute.

And these are people who, yes they are very proud of their roots, but they're part of modern Scotland as well, they are as much Runrig as Rabbie Burns.

Question:Do you think Scots at home have something to learn about patriotism from the expat community?

Liddell:Oh yes. I think we still suffer a little bit from "I ken't his faither" and whenever you see Scots, for example, I've just come back from Canada and people see Scots as very, very successful in Canada and still live as Scots - they haven't changed the way they live their lives.

And when you see that, you see great role models that would apply in Scotland. And also we Scots ourselves are not terribly well informed about the extent to which Scotland has changed and some of the things that are happening on the ground - it's not just dolly the sheep. It's the fact that we have companies like Cyclacel in Dundee who are working very hard and are very close to finding a cure to cancer, and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter we have modern firms in Cumbernauld with 1000 people working for them worldwide. We've Ananova and lead the world in digital animation. A lot of people back home don't realise that?

Question:If this works, Scotland will become more multi-cultural. Do you think that Scots are predisposed towards multi-culturalism?

Liddell:Of course - we all have different backgrounds. In fact if you look at the people in the West of Scotland and see the different names on any voter roles, you see the extent of multiculturalism and it is a community that is comfortable with that.