KEZIA Dugdale was motivated “at least in part by ill-feeling” towards a pro-independence blogger when she accused him of making homophobic remarks, a court has been told.

The former Scottish Labour leader is being sued for £25,000 by Stuart Campbell, who runs the website Wings Over Scotland, after she accused him of writing “homophobic tweets”.

On the last day of the hearing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, Mr Campbell’s lawyer suggested Ms Dugdale made the claim partly because the blogger had been “tormenting” her on his site, which was “very well read and respected” among a certain section of the population.

READ MORE: Kezia Dugdale stands by article accusing Wings Over Scotland of 'homophobic tweets'

Craig Sandison QC said his client had painted Ms Dugdale as a “habitual liar”, adding: “It beggars belief to think the defender’s attitude towards him cannot have been coloured by what he said and did about her.”

But Roddy Dunlop QC, acting for Ms Dugdale, accused Mr Campbell of firing “poisoned arrows” at others and being unable to take it in return.

He said Ms Dugdale’s article was fair comment, and argued it was “substantially true” to label Mr Campbell a homophobe.

The row centres on a tweet Mr Campbell, 51, who lives in Bath, sent in March 2017.

He wrote that Scottish Secretary David Mundell’s son Oliver, a Tory MSP, was “the sort of public speaker that makes you wish his dad had embraced his homosexuality sooner”. David Mundell came out as gay in 2016.

Writing in her Daily Record column a few days later, Ms Dugdale said she was “shocked and appalled to see a pro-independence blogger’s homophobic tweets”, and accused him of spouting "hatred and homophobia towards others".

Mr Campbell previously told the court he was “absolutely horrified” by this accusation, insisting he was a long-standing advocate of gay rights and the claim was “self-evidently ludicrous”.

His lawyer, Mr Sandison, said Ms Dugdale’s article could “reasonably and naturally” be interpreted as calling Mr Campbell a homophobe, which is defamatory.

He said the Lothians MSP referred to “homophobic tweets”, but there was only one tweet “which the defender says she regards as homophobic”.

He later said: “If anyone was abused by the tweet, it was Oliver Mundell, because what the pursuer has said is that he is an awful public speaker, and that statement that Oliver Mundell is an awful public speaker was not based on his sexuality. It is nothing to do with his sexuality.”

But Mr Dunlop insisted there is a “plain irony” in Mr Campbell – “a master of calumny” – suing the politician for defamation.

He said: “This is, after all, someone who has entered the political arena of his own volition, armed with a quiver of poisoned arrows that he will fire at anyone he chooses. He should not complain when an arrow is fired back.”

He said the blogger is a “public figure who is openly and caustically critical of anyone who opposes his point of view”, adding: “All of that means he needs a thicker skin.”

He said any suggestion of dishonesty on the part of Ms Dugdale should be rejected, while Mr Campbell’s “self-serving” evidence should be “treated with care”.

He insisted Mr Campbell would have been “sued out of existence” if not for laws which protect freedom of speech.

Mr Dunlop said the blogger “quite clearly does not like the defender”, adding: “He has been extremely rude about her on multiple occasions, and the one occasion she calls him out, he sues – and he sues her, not David Mundell, not any of the media organs who carried those comments”.

He said the issue of whether or not the tweet was homophobic is “quintessentially a value judgement”, arguing David Mundell had been “collateral damage” in a joke designed to mock his son.

He added: “The simple fact of the matter is it was Mundell senior who was the butt of the joke. Why was he the butt of the joke? Because the only way this works is to focus on his sexuality.”

The lawyer said his client had called the tweet homophobic, not Mr Campbell. But even if she had labelled him a homophobe, this is “substantially true”.

READ MORE: Wings Over Scotland 'horrified' over Kezia Dugdale's homophobic tweet claim

Mr Dunlop said this could be seen from past comments Mr Campbell had made, as well as his alleged transphobia “writ large”. He suggested the court should also take into account Mr Campbell’s reputation for “bile and vitriol” when awarding any damages.

Mr Sandison rejected claims his client is transphobic, and pointed to a collection of 120 tweets and links showing his support for gay rights.

He earlier said Mr Campbell is a “public figure for the social media age”, meaning it was not simply a private reputation which had been damaged.

This meant the £25,000 sought was “very reasonable”. Mr Dunlop said any damages should be “nowhere close” to what Mr Campbell wants.

Sheriff Nigel Ross will now consider the arguments on both sides. He said he hoped to make a ruling within four weeks.