The Scottish National Party have been pressured right into a humiliating U-turn over plans to ban drinks corporations sponsoring sporting and reside occasions after a report mentioned there was “no robust evidence” to help the plan.

SNP First Minister Humza Housaf has pledged to go “back to the drawing board” within the wake of findings from the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) and outcry from the drinks trade.

The Scottish Government had beforehand been consulting on plans which might have barred drinks corporations from sponsoring sport and reside occasions, and which might have prevented distillery and brewery retailers from promoting branded merchandise to guests.

When he took over as FM, Mr Yousaf mentioned he backed the goal of the measures "to reduce the harm caused by alcohol to children", however accepted that that they had brought on "real concern".

As a consequence he mentioned he had instructed Scottish Government employees to "take these ideas back to the drawing board, work with the industry, and crucially with public health stakeholders, to agree a new set of proposals".

The IEA paper got down to look at the "empirical evidence" for alcohol promoting bans.

And whereas it mentioned public well being campaigners "claim that a ban on alcohol advertising would reduce alcohol-related harm", the report said: "There is no robust evidence in favour of alcohol advertising bans”, adding: "Banning alcohol promoting shouldn't be introduced as an evidence-based coverage."

The research said a small number of studies looking specifically at the impact of alcohol advertising bans had "produced combined outcomes", but insisted that majority had "discovered no influence on mixture gross sales".

The report cited a review in 2014 which it said was "broadly thought-about the 'gold commonplace' of proof in well being coverage" as having found there is "at the moment an absence of sturdy proof for or towards recommending the implementation of alcohol promoting restrictions".

It noted that spending on alcohol advertising in the US rose by nearly 400% in real terms between 1971 and 2012, but said that there was "little change in per capita alcohol consumption" over this era.

It added that nations together with France, Russia, Sweden, Finland and Norway had "heavy restrictions on alcohol promoting" but said that "when economists have studied alcohol promoting bans, they've largely discovered no influence on general alcohol consumption".

Alcohol companies advertise in a bid to attract customers from their rivals and keep their own customers, the report added.

And it said: "It is stunning that politicians, of all folks, typically fail to grasp this. Their personal promoting throughout elections is geared toward getting voters to change from one occasion to a different."

Report author and head of lifestyle economics at the IEA, Christopher Snowdon, said: "The declare that banning alcohol promoting would scale back the quantity of alcohol-related hurt in society has remarkably little proof to help it.

"Advertising affects the market share of individual brands, but the amount of money spent on alcohol advertising has no effect on alcohol consumption overall.

"This is how promoting works in each different mature market, and it might be a shock if alcohol had been any completely different."

Mr Snowdon added: "Strident claims from anti-alcohol campaigners about promoting needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

"This evidence review found that only a few high-quality studies have looked at this issue, and the evidence is, at best, mixed.

"A ban on alcohol promoting will surely not be an evidence-based coverage."

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "As the First Minister has mentioned, he wholeheartedly helps the goals of the latest session on alcohol promoting - notably to cut back the hurt attributable to alcohol to younger folks - however is eager to take a contemporary have a look at the problem, balancing that goal with cautious consideration of the influence restrictions might have on enterprise."