LEGAL experts have warned they still have concerns over controversial hate crime proposals – amid warnings over insulting someone being a criminal offence.

Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf last month outlined amendments to the Scottish Government proposals amid concerns over the potential impact on freedom of expression.

Following the change of heart, the contentious stirring up hatred offences will now “require an intention on the part of the accused” for an offence to have been committed.

But legal experts, appearing in front of Holyrood’s Justice Committee, have warned that issues still remain – particularly over part of the plans making it an offence to stir up hatred by "insulting" somebody on racial grounds.

Roddy Dunlop the dean of Faculty of Advocates, welcomed the change of heart from Mr Yousaf, -pointing to the removal of “potential damage that might be done" without the intent clause.

He said: “We do still have a residual concern regarding the use of insulting with regard to race and only to race.

“The problem I have with it is it’s very difficult to see what it adds because it you look at the 20-year history, I’m certainly unable to find any prosecution which even suggested let alone ultimately turned on insulting as being the crucial provision.

“It is very difficult to see a situation where words are used that are not threatening, that are not abusive and yet still might be worthy of criminalisation in reference to the insulting provisions.”

He added: “Why would we want characteristics to be protected against insults?

“All sorts of people are capable of being insulted by all sorts of things whereas something is either threatening or it’s not – that's quintessentially objective. Something is either abusive or it’s not.”

Michael Clancy from the Law Society of Scotland, warned that "there are issues with the use of the word insulting".

He added: "This is lowering the bar for criminality a bit too far.

"We feel that it might create some kind of hierarchy between stirring up hatred on the basis of race and stirring up hatred on the basis of the other characteristics."

Dr Andrew Tickell from Glasgow Caledonian University, added that he would "struggle to see circumstances where communication or comment would be somehow insulting but not abusive" and called for it to be "made more simple".

Previously, Conservative MSPs on the committee have warned about over-zealous laws criminalising people having conversations within their own homes.

Mr Dunlop said the position of crimes taking place in the home was “finely balanced”, suggesting “the state to step into the home and interfere” does sound “rather draconian”.

But he stressed that “there are many, many instances in which the state does just that”.

He added: “It is equally criminal to punch somebody in your own home as it is in the street.

"I suppose the counter view would be you want to stop, for example, the radicalisation of children within the home by hate speech being propagated within the home in the same way you do with someone on a street corner.

"The primary concern I would have is that it's abused and that it becomes a situation where, as has been suggested in the media, everyone's least favourite uncle becomes the subject of a complaint to the police because of what he said over the Christmas turkey. That can't really be what we're looking at here."

Mr Clancy said "there shouldn't be a sanctuary when it comes to hate speech".

Dr Tickell said some of the media "fixation" about being prosecuted over the dinner table as "quite ridiculous" given the seriousness of hate speech.

Calum Steele, general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, told MSPs that "there is no general defence for committing crime in your own home" but added that "we have to recognise there are some hot topics that can be discussed in the home”, which could include transgender identity “that could be argued as hateful and abusive".