Question: You met President Bush during his state visit - what was your verdict?

Menzies Campbell: I accompanied Charles Kennedy when he paid the traditional visit to a head of state which opposition parties are invited to make.

I had the opportunity to discuss directly with President Bush issues such as Iraq, the Middle East, Guantanamo Bay, Kyoto and trade sanctions.

He's personally extremely engaging. He has a well-developed sense of humour, is self-deprecating and when he engages in a discussion with you he's warm and concentrates directly on you. He looks you straight in the eye and tells you exactly what he thinks.

I wasn't persuaded by what he said but I was most certainly surprised at the extent to which the caricature of him was inaccurate.

Question: What was the atmosphere like in the palace?

Menzies Campbell: It was extremely friendly, constructive. I suspect we were the only group of politicians in Britain that he met who were challenging his political views. He'd met the Cabinet, Michael Howard and Michael Ancram. I think the Liberal Democrats proved to be a stimulating alternative.

Question: Did it feel like the place was under siege?

Menzies Campbell: If the purpose of a state visit is for the dignitary to see and be seen then in this case security made it impossible for President Bush to carry that out.

Question: Does that bring into question the point of holding future visits?

Menzies Campbell: In spite of the brave words I'm pretty clear that although in public President Bush and Mr Blair were entirely positive about the visit, both of them could have envisaged more favourable circumstances.

When President Clinton came to visit Britain, the problem was keeping the president away from the crowds. This time round the problem has been keeping the crowds away from the president.

Question: No progress on the Middle East, no deals on Guantanamo, tariffs, WTO or anything else. Was this visit worth it?

Menzies Campbell: This visit was worthwhile to President Bush, he got the desirable news pictures of himself with the Queen and Mr Blair. But if you do a profit and loss account from the view of Number 10 Downing Street they would be hard pushed to say they were in the black.

Question: Was this part of the re-election campaign?

Menzies Campbell: It' worth remembering this visit was arranged 18 months ago by mutual agreement. It demonstrates that once these visits are in the pipeline it's very difficult to bring them to an end without causing considerable diplomatic fall-out.

This visit was ill-timed, of that there is no doubt whatsoever. If circumstances in Iraq and elsewhere had been better the visit would have better.

Question: Was part of the problem that strategists had planned for a short war in Iraq?

Menzies Campbell: I'm not sure it's as cynical as that. If you look at the programmes of the prime minister and the president - particularly with re-election on the horizon - it's not difficult to deduce there really was a narrow window for this visit. If it was going to take place at all it was going to have to take place in the autumn of 2003.

Question: Where do Blair and Bush go from here?

Menzies Campbell: They obviously share very strong views about how we deal with the issue of terrorism. My anxiety is that there's too much evangelism in their approach. I believe it's right we should have, if you like, Gladstonian objectives but you've got to operate within the framework of existing international law taking into account the UN and its charter.

I think you've got to be pragmatic in the way that you go forward. I think the prime minister and the president, although neither of them used the word, nonetheless gave the impression of being on something of a crusade. It's a word that causes great offence in the Middle East. You have to be very careful about language in these things. Otherwise it's too easy for the supporters of terrorism to present these things as if it were a Christian West against a Muslim East.