US president Donald Trump will visit Scotland next week, the White House has confirmed.

Speculation mounted about a potential visit of the president this month when Police Scotland confirmed it was in the early stages of planning for such an event.

Speaking at a briefing in Washington DC on Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed Trump will visit both of his golf courses in Scotland: Turnberry in Ayrshire and Menie in Aberdeenshire; between 25 and 29 July.

It has already been confirmed Trump will meet with prime minister Keir Starmer while in Aberdeen, while plans are being put in place for the president to meet first minister John Swinney, according to the Scottish government.

Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie accused the Scottish first minister of hitting the “independence panic button”, claiming Scots will be “shaking their heads”.

She added: “Twenty-five years ago, the then SNP leader, John Swinney, claimed that independence was ‘closer than ever’. Now he is attempting to lead his troops up the hill once more - but even they don’t buy it.

“John Swinney offers absolutely no vision and no hope for the people of Scotland.

“It is time to turn our backs on John Swinney’s old, failed politics of the past and to choose a better Scotland with better leadership.”

John Healey has been accused by the Liberal Democrats of misleading parliament over the Afghan data leak.

Ed Davey said that the defence secretary must “urgently come before parliament to answer the question of whether he knowingly misled MPs and the public”.

According to Hansard, Healey told the Commons on Tuesday: “To the best of my knowledge and belief, no serving member of our armed forces is put at risk by the data loss.”

Lib Dem leader Davey said: “Today we found out that appears to be false.

“We need to know if any serving members of the armed forces were impacted - and the Defence Secretary must urgently come before parliament to answer the question of whether he knowingly misled MPs and the public.”

Lib Dem MP Ian Roome, who previously served in the RAF, said: “It is really important to restore public trust that he now clarifies his remarks. It is the least that our brave armed forces personnel along with the thousands of Afghans impacted deserve.”

The number of serious pollution incidents caused by water firms across England rose by 60% in 2024 compared with the previous year, the Environment Agency said.

The watchdog revealed consistently poor performance from all nine water and sewerage firms in the country despite expectations for incidents to decrease, PA reported.

The Environment Agency assesses all pollution incidents from water firms into categories, with category 1 (major) and category 2 (significant) being the most serious, which can have a highly negative impact on wildlife, ecosystems and swimmers.

Last year, 75 category 1 and 2 incidents were recorded, up from 47 serious incidents the previous year.

Three water firms - Thames Water, Southern Water and Yorkshire Water - were responsible for 81% of the serious incidents, according to its findings.

Thames Water was responsible for 33, Southern Water for 15 and Yorkshire Water for 13.

Meanwhile, just two companies - Northumbrian Water and Wessex Water - had no serious incidents last year, meeting the Environment Agencies expectations to see a trend to zero pollution incidents by 2025.

Overall, the watchdog said all pollution incidents increased by 29% with water companies recording 2,801, up from 2,174 in 2023.

Environment secretary Steve Reed called the figures “disgraceful” and a “stark reminder” of how underinvestment and weak regulation have led to sewage polluting England’s waterways.

“In just one year, this new government has banned unfair bonuses for polluting water bosses, brought in jail sentences for pollution, and secured £104 billion to upgrade crumbling sewage pipes - one of the biggest infrastructure investments in history,” he said.

“Next week the Independent Water Commission will recommend changes to strengthen the rules so we can clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.”

John Swinney has pledged to “turn the heat up” on the UK government to allow a second independence referendum as part of his latest strategy to achieve separation.

Writing in the National newspaper on Friday, the Scottish first minister pledged to increase support for Scotland leaving the UK and stressed the importance of supporters of independence backing the SNP at next year’s Holyrood election.

Since the first vote in 2014, successive UK governments have repeatedly turned down calls for a second referendum, with the UK Supreme Court ruling in 2022 that only Westminster can allow another poll, PA reported.

The first minister pledged to mobilise support around the calling of another vote, though prime minister Keir Starmer is extremely unlikely to back down.

The first point of the three-part plan outlined by Swinney - who has been feeling some pressure since the SNP lost in June the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election to up his push for independence - focuses on increasing support for leaving the UK.

“First, it will be a campaign designed to build the highest levels of support possible for independence as the best future for Scotland,” he wrote.

“I will be saying to those who voted Yes in 2014, and who have become independence supporters in the years since, that what they believed in then is just as valid today.

“They saw that Britain was fundamentally broken, that Westminster couldn’t deliver on their dreams and aspirations, and what they saw has come to pass. And now it is time to do something about it.

“But I will also be urging people who were not persuaded of the merits of independence in 2014 to see the state of Britain today and take a different view.”

Data divulged as part of the Afghan leak could be used by “states who want to do us harm”, the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) has said.

Speaking to BBC Radio Scotland, Lord Beamish lamented that no one “saw fit” to tell the committee about the leak and the subsequent superinjunction which blocked it being reported.

He added: “That’s the most concerning point, that other states who want to do us harm, or entities, could use that, not just to target these individuals, but they could also use it as a way of seeing other operations that our security services are involved in.”

The committee has demanded security assessments on the issue from the government.

There are “serious constitutional issues” raised by the Afghan data leak, the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) has said.

Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland on Friday, Lord Beamish said the ISC was not informed of the breach, despite the names of more than 100 Britons being divulged - including spies and SAS operators.

“You’ve got to understand how our committee got its powers in the first place,” he said.

“The Justice and Security Act 2013 introduced closed hearings into court for intelligence cases - the quid pro quo for that was to give the ISC the power to reassure, to be able to see the information legally, to reassure the public and Parliament that there was public scrutiny of the security services.

“Someone in government chose just to ignore that and go down the legal route, so I think there are serious constitutional issues here.”

Grant Shapps said he supported the publication of a defence assessment which formed the basis of the superinjunction over the Afghan data leak and he was “surprised” the gagging order had remained in place “so long”.

Asked whether he backed calls from the Intelligence and Security Committee for the report to be released, the former defence secretary told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Yes I would.

“And secondly, this injunction, the superinjunction, was in place for longer than I was defence secretary, right?

“So it’s been in place a lot longer under the current government than it was under us, and I’m surprised it’s lasted quite so long.

“My expectation was, as the risks start to lessen over time and people are removed from the theatre, from Afghanistan, and measures are taken to protect the Brits on the list... I’d thought that it was probably going to come to an end last summer, the autumn perhaps at maximum.”

He insisted he would “do the same thing all over again” to protect Afghans and Brits involved and said he thinks “the public understands that there are times where you simply have to act in the most maximalist way in order to stop people from being murdered and executed, and that is, quite simply, what properly happened in this case.”

He added: “Now, as I said, I don’t think it should have carried on as long as it had... those questions are for others.”

“I came in, I dealt with it and as a result I think that we saved lives,” Shapps said.

Grant Shapps said his focus as defence secretary following the Afghan data leak was on “sorting out the mess and saving lives”.

The former minister, who was in post while a superinjunction was imposed on the incident, suggested he believed it should remain in place because he thought there was a risk of those named being murdered if it did not.

The injunction was sought by Shapps’ predecessor, Ben Wallace, and a superinjunction was instead put in place when Shapps took over the brief.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he said “it was appalling to learn about this and my focus was on two things... one, sorting out the mess and saving lives, and two, making sure that systems were in place which frankly should have always been in place to make sure this sort of sensitive information could never be sent on”.

“The judge himself decided it should be a superinjunction... the injunction had been applied for by my predecessor, quite rightly, in my view, it came into place just as I came into office,” he said. “And it is the case that I thought that once the superinjunction was in place, it should remain as a superinjunction.

“And here’s why, the problem with this list and all of the uncertainty surrounding it, and one of the reasons why I haven’t come out in the initial couple days of this to speak about it was that obviously, with the new information that’s now been released about the fact that there were British Special Forces and secret services on that list, it seemed to me that if there was any doubt at all, that erring on the side of extreme caution, a superinjunction meant that that was entirely justified.

“And I’ll tell you what, anybody sat behind the desk that I was sat in as defence secretary and faced with the choice of whether that list would get out and people would be pursued, murdered and executed as a result of it, or doing something to try and save those lives, I’d much rather now be in this interview explaining why a superinjunction was required, than being in this interview explaining why I failed to act and people were murdered.”