King and Queen begin Holyrood Week under guard of ceremonial female bodyguards
Charles and Camilla began their official stay in Scotland – known as Holyrood Week – by carrying out solo engagements in Edinburgh and later hosted a garden party together.
Earlier when the Queen opened Ratho library, she told her hosts the weather was 'cooler' than conditions in England and described the weather in Scotland as a 'drop in temperature'.
Scots from a range of backgrounds from NHS workers to the military and charity volunteers were invited to the Palace of Holyroodhouse, the King and Queen's official residence in the Scottish capital, for the garden party.
Annabel Biddulp was one of four female members of the Royal Company of Archers, the Sovereign's Body Guard in Scotland, on duty at the social event with their bows.
She described herself as the sixth generation of her family to be an Archer, with her father and uncle also on duty, and said the historic moment was 'absolutely wonderful, so many of my family have been part of the Archers for generations'.
Ms Biddulph was going to celebrate with a 'jolly good party tonight' and said the King mentioned the trusty bow she was holding.
'He asked 'are you a dab hand at that' to which the answer was yes'.
The garden party was staged in Holyroodhouse gardens, overlooked by Holyrood Park where Republic had staged a protest spelling out the words 'Not My King' with what appeared to be large pieces of white card that was visible by guests.
Charles also chatted to Second World War veteran George McLeod, aged 99, who served as a private with the 4th Battalion, King's Own Scottish Borderers.
Mr McLeod was joined by his daughter Jan McLeod who said: 'The King spoke about the VE Day events in London and said it was very important to keep the memories alive and how sad it was we were losing veterans.'
She added her father was in the German city of Bremen when the war ended in 1945: 'He was in communications and the first to hear the war was over, he's a bit of a joker, and no one believed him at first.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
For the NHS, it's Wes or bust
Labour swept to power on a pledge to 'save the NHS'. As shadow health secretary, Wes Streeting said he would go 'further than New Labour ever did' to clear the health service's backlog and, to achieve this, he claimed old taboos would be torn up, including the use of the private sector to improve services. Failure to clear the backlog now will be hugely politically consequential for this government. Partly because of how important the NHS is to the voting public, but more so because of the emotional resonance the service and its 'free-at-the-point-of-use' model has for Labour, both its MPs and its supporters. If the party that founded the NHS cannot save it, who can? That is why the NHS has been mostly immune to Rachel Reeves's new austerity. At each fiscal event and budget, it has received consistent funding increases. Yet behind the headline figures lies the real question: will this money yield returns – or simply vanish into the system, absorbed by wage demands and patchwork firefighting? That is a question which the Ten Year Health Plan, published this week, seeks to answer. The prescription it offers is a familiar one. It bears the unmistakable imprint of the former health secretary Alan Milburn, architect of Labour's early-2000s health reforms who has now returned to advise Streeting. His tools are back: league tables and performance targets tied to executive bonuses. Foundation trusts will be empowered to meet centrally imposed benchmarks, such as the four-hour waiting time in A&E target. Structural reforms introduced while the Conservatives were in power – Integrated Care Systems and various independent watchdogs, including Healthwatch England – are being dismantled. Power is returning both to the centre and to hospital management. There is a reasonable case to be made for this – waiting times fell dramatically during the New Labour years. The last Conservative government's lack of willingness to challenge the NHS leadership after the failed 2012 reforms allowed for hundreds of useless quangos to spring up; the 'NHS Race and Health Observatory' being chief among them. There is plenty of fat to cut. But being more New Labour than New Labour is not a certain route to success. The fiscal context in 2001 – when Gordon Brown began to release funding for public services from the Treasury – is very different today, with Britain teetering on the verge of a sovereign debt crisis. In 2001 there had been a £15 billion surplus. Last year the deficit was almost £150 billion. The increases in day-to-day spending that Rachel Reeves is able to offer the NHS at the expense of other departments are substantial in cost but not impact. Thanks in part to demographic pressures, the NHS needs 3 per cent increases in spending to keep the service it provides running. Doctors and nurses are already being balloted for strikes in the next year, which will end with any extra money being swallowed by wage increases. New Labour was also able to reach record levels of capital investment through the Private Finance Initiative, the use of which was vociferously defended by Milburn, who dubbed it 'the only game in town'. But Reeves's Treasury has specifically stated there is no chance of a 'PFI 2.0' taking place. In short, there isn't any money. Can good management compensate for the absence of large-scale investment? And can targets and structural clarity deliver improvement without the 5 per cent real-terms annual increases of the early 2000s? On the former, this question has been threaded through debates on public-sector reform since Margaret Thatcher embraced an NHS internal market in the 1980s. It divides those who argue that output follows input – hire more staff, build more hospitals, spend your way out of crisis – and those who insist that quasi-market reforms can improve efficiencies without extra money. It was the key point of difference in Labour between the modernisers, who saw a mixture of devolution and incentives as the key for better public services, and the traditionalists, who believed that it was a question of staffing and money. Ask Tony Blair why the NHS got better in the 2000s and he would say it was the targets. Gordon Brown would say it was money. The next four years will provide an opportunity to settle the debate. Unless Wes Streeting, a capable person whatever his perceived flaws, manages to improve the NHS substantially in the next four years – showing that only taxing and spending more can improve public services – then we will be faced with an uncomfortable truth: the NHS has no future. If reform cannot deliver efficiencies, it is the model itself which is broken. We simply cannot sustain 3 per cent increases in real terms spending on the NHS year-on-year with an ageing population, just to keep it afloat. It is not a matter of political principles or willpower. The sums do not add up. If politicians will not be honest with the public about that, then they will have to hear it from the IMF. It really is Wes or bust.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
In 1948 a Labour government founded the NHS. My job now is to make it fit for the future
There are moments in our national story when our choices define who we are. In 1948, Clement Attlee's government made a choice founded on fairness: that everyone in our country deserves to receive the care they need, not the care they can afford. That the National Health Service was created amid the rubble and ruin of the aftermath of war makes that choice all the more remarkable. It enshrined in law and in the service itself our collective conviction that healthcare is not a privilege to be bought and sold, but a right to be cherished and protected. Now it falls to our generation to make the same choice. There have always been those who have whispered that the NHS is a burden, too expensive, inferior to the market. Today, those voices grow louder, determined to use the crisis in the NHS as an opportunity to dismantle it. This government rejects the pessimistic view that universal healthcare could be afforded in the 20th century but not in the 21st. So does the public. But unless the NHS changes, the argument that it is unsustainable will grow more compelling. It really is change or bust. We choose change. Today, the prime minister will launch our 10-year plan for health, to radically reimagine healthcare. More care will be available on your doorstep and from your own home, with thousands more GPs. Services and resources will be moved out of hospitals and into the community. New neighbourhood health centres[?] will house doctors, nurses, physios, therapists, tests, scans and urgent care under one roof, built around patients' convenience. AI technology will liberate frontline staff from the drudgery of admin, giving them time to care. Saving just 90 seconds of data entry and note-taking per appointment would be the equivalent of hiring an extra 2,000 GPs. For patients, tech will make booking appointments and managing your care as easy as doing your shopping online. By treating and caring for patients closer to home, we will reach patients earlier, to catch illness before it worsens, and prevent it in the first place. Our plan brings together a coalition of the willing on public health, working with supermarkets to make the healthy choice the easy choice and pharmaceutical companies to secure obesity jabs for NHS patients. The plan is backed by an extra £29bn investment to fund the reforms, better services and new technology. I am sometimes told that NHS staff are resistant to change. In my experience, they're crying out for it. They have suffered the moral injury of turning up to work, slogging their guts out, only to leave at the end of the day feeling exhausted and demoralised by the conditions that patients are being treated in because of circumstances beyond their control. I spoke to a nurse in a community clinic who told me she spends more time filling out forms than seeing patients. That's not why she joined the NHS. We need to free up our staff to do what they do best – care. They're the ones driving innovation on the frontline, and their fingerprints are all over this plan. To succeed, we need to defeat the cynicism that says that 'nothing ever changes'. We know the change in our plan is possible because it is already happening. We have toured the country and scouted the world for the best examples of innovation and reform. If Australia can effectively serve communities living in the remote outback, we can meet the needs of people living in rural and coastal England. If community health teams can go door to door to prevent ill health in Brazil, we can do the same in Bradford. We know we can build the 'neighbourhood health service', because teams in Cornwall, Camden and Northumberland are already showing us how. Since July, we've already begun to turn the tide. We promised to deliver 2m extra elective appointments in our first year – we've delivered 4m and counting. Through our plan for change, we've taken almost a quarter of a million cases off the waiting list. The science is on our side. The revolution in genomics, AI, machine learning and big data offers a golden opportunity to deliver better care for all patients and better value for taxpayers. We will take it, marrying the ingenuity of our country's leading scientists with the care and compassion of the health service. Above all else, we will give power to the patient. In an age of next-day deliveries, an NHS that forces you to wait on the phone at 8am to book an appointment feels ridiculously outdated. Patients don't just want a service from the NHS, we want a say. We don't want the same as everyone else; we want care that meets our individual needs. Equality does not mean uniformity, it means that every person receives the right care for them. This plan will give people real choices, faster responses and a say in how their care is delivered and where. It will fulfil Nye Bevan's commitment in 1948 that the NHS would put a 'megaphone in the mouth' of every patient, and make sure that the advantages enjoyed by the privileged few were available to all. We know the British people are counting on us to make sure that the NHS not only survives, but thrives. We are determined not to let them down. That's the plan – now it falls to us and the 1.5 million people working in the NHS to deliver it. It won't be easy, but nothing could be more worthwhile. If we succeed, we will be able to say with pride, echoed through the remaining decades of this century, that we were the generation that built an NHS fit for the future and a fairer Britain, where everyone lives well for longer. Wes Streeting is secretary of state for health and social care
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
ScotGov warned nuclear stance is costing jobs and economic growth
And he says it could create thousands of new, highly-skilled jobs in Scotland while also delivering clean, secure and more affordable energy for working people. It comes as the MP visits Torness Nuclear Power Station in East Lothian and he wants Scotland to follow countries such as Denmark, Italy and Belgium in changing their views on nuclear energy. Mr Murray said: 'In other parts of the UK, the UK Government is driving forward nuclear power, as are countries across Europe and indeed the world. But in Scotland the Scottish Government clings to its ideological objection to new nuclear sites. Read More 'That means that Scotland is being left behind, missing out on thousands of skilled jobs and economic growth, as well as clean affordable energy. I urge the Scottish Government to put Scotland's interests first.' Tom Greatrex, Chief Executive of the Nuclear Industry Association said: "Nuclear in Scotland will bring jobs and growth as well as a constant supply of secure, reliable and clean electricity that complements other low carbon sources. 'As countries around the world are increasingly embracing nuclear as an integral part of achieving energy security, decarbonisation and minimising the exposure to the volatility of fossil fuel prices. The Scottish Government's refusal to countenance replacing Torness when it retires in a few years is indicative of a fundamental lack of seriousness of policy." Sam Richards, CEO of pro-growth campaign group Britain Remade, said: 'Scotland is being left behind. While countries like Sweden and Finland embrace clean, reliable nuclear energy - the Scottish Government clings to its outdated ban on new nuclear. If nuclear industry jobs and investment are banned from coming to Scotland, they will go to these places instead. 'Torness has powered homes and supported jobs for decades, but a lack of certainty over its future puts this in jeopardy. Renewables are vital, but wind and solar can't do it all. Scotland needs nuclear to provide jobs and investment, deliver secure domestic energy, and cut emissions. Most Scots and even most SNP voters back it. It's time for ministers in Edinburgh to stop saying no and start saying yes to new nuclear.' Torness is due to stop generating by March 2030, having been up and running since 1988. The power station currently employs around 550 full-time EDF employees plus more than 180 full-time contract partners. Staff are to be given an opportunity to retrain ahead of its closure in 2030 with the power station among the largest employers in the south-east of Scotland.
