The debate over whether to allow gambling on cruise ships while they are in port is important on two levels.

It has become something of a referendum on gambling in general, with fears that it is the proverbial "thin edge of the wedge" towards allowing full fledged casino gambling in hotels.

On another, more political, level it has become a test of whether Premier and Tourism Minister Dr. Ewart Brown can deliver on his promises, and if he can get legislation through the House of Assembly.

Proponents of the change say it is the only way to get cruise ships back into Hamilton and St. George's. It is argued that the smaller ships that can get into those ports can only afford to do so if they can open their highly lucrative casinos while in port. Elsewhere in the world, it is argued, the ships are at sea every night and therefore gambling is allowed.

No one disputes that the lack of ships in Hamilton in particular has done tremendous damage to retail stores and restaurants catering to tourists, especially those based on Front Street, in Hamilton. It is also true to say that retail sales in Dockyard have not made up the difference.

The cruise lines have apparently stipulated that they will only come to Hamilton and St. George's if they can open their casinos since it is otherwise not worthwhile.

Whether Bermuda really needed to give in on this point is debatable. A claim that Holland America Line left Bermuda in the 1980s because the Island was unprofitable is dubious.

This is where the debate goes from the particular to the partisan. If Bermuda could have assurances that gambling will go no further than the ships, and that, as has been suggested, the Corporations of Hamilton and St. George's could share some of the gambling revenue for public improvements, then the vote in Parliament might pass.

But what is clear from the debate is that the Government, and the Premier in particular, suffer from a credibility problem.

Many people refuse to believe that the smaller ships serving Bermuda left voluntarily, and few believe that if gaming is allowed on the ships, that it will not then serve as a justification for it to be allowed on land as well.

What also remains open is the question of whether this is a genuinely free vote for Progressive Labour Party MPs in the House of Assembly.

It clearly is for the backbenchers, but is it for Cabinet Ministers, who have already given this Government bill the stamp of collective responsibility in Cabinet. That means they are dutybound to support the bill, even if they oppose it, so it will be interesting to see how that vote proceeds.

Hello, Uighurs

This newspaper does not yet have a position on yesterday's announcement that the Island will resettle four Uighurs previously held at Guantanamo Bay.

It is a reasonably complex story, and it seems pretty clear that more will come out on it over the next few days.

But here are some early observations and questions:

What's in it for Bermuda in real terms? Palau apparently has got $200 million in aid from the US for taking 17 Uighurs "temporarily". So what's Bermuda's payoff?

Premier Dr. Ewart Brown apparently wants to turn this into a fight with Britain, who apparently knew nothing about the deal until yesterday morning. Britain may not agree to this, because of the risks of alienating China, a massively important trading partner.

If Dr. Brown wants a fight, he needs to be careful. Most early reaction from the general public to this has been fairly negative, so he may not have much support for a fight with Government House over sovereignty on this issue.

He certainly won't get much support from the expatriate community, as they are term- limited off the Island while four people from a country most residents had never heard of until yesterday suddenly have permanent residence.

On the other hand, is anyone talking about gambling today?