could become Government policy at a United Bermuda Party caucus meeting on Thursday, an MP said yesterday.

Dr. David Dyer said he expected Sen. Oughton's amendment to be discussed at Cabinet today, and again at caucus two days later.

Under Sen. Oughton's amendment -- which was approved by the Senate and is expected to be debated in the House of Assembly on May 6 -- a referendum decision on Independence would have to be made by a majority of those eligible to vote, rather than a simple majority of those who cast ballots.

Many in the party felt the Senate amendment was consistent with Government's 1979 White Paper on Independence, which said: "Except in the most unusual circumstances, it would be morally wrong to take Bermuda into Independence without a clear indication that a majority of Bermudians supported it.'' As that was still Government policy, "I would have thought that (the caucus) would have great difficulty in not embracing it,'' in the form of the Senate amendment, Dr. Dyer told The Royal Gazette .

Premier the Hon. Sir John Swan has described the Senate amendment as "an affront to our whole democratic system''. If the UBP caucus embraced the amendment, it would be seen as an affront to Sir John's leadership.

Dr. Dyer, the former Government Whip, said he was "not sure'' whether Sir John could accept the Senate amendment and retain the leadership.

"He was out on a limb before and he managed to scramble back,'' Dr. Dyer said. "He crawled back, having been way out on a limb the last time.'' Dr. Dyer was referring to 1988, when Premier Swan bowed to the UBP caucus and returned Independence talk to the back burner after coming out personally in favour of it.

While Dr. Dyer saw the adoption of the Senate amendment as a strong possibility, a faction in the UBP led by Tourism Minister the Hon. C.V. (Jim) Woolridge and former Cabinet Minister Mrs. Ann Cartwright DeCouto wants the issue dropped completely.

There is sympathy in the UBP for that position, too.

Backbencher Mr. Rick Spurling said he would "breathe a sigh of relief'' if the Independence Referendum Act 1994 was withdrawn, as Mr. Woolridge urged on Friday.

If the bill was withdrawn, the pros and cons of Independence could still be examined, possibly through a Green Paper, Mr. Spurling said. A referendum would only be held "if necessary.'' The lawyer and rookie MP said he wished to keep an open mind on Independence, and he was not opposed to educating the public. "However, I know of no case, in my view, that I've heard to date that argues in any way in favour of it.'' Mr. Spurling said he would not vote against the Government "if the caucus rules once again that this is the way we should proceed''.

However, "to cool things down, I probably would breathe a sigh of relief if it was withdrawn''.

Former Premier the Hon. Sir David Gibbons said he too wished the Independence issue would "go away.'' To that extent, he agreed with Mr. Woolridge, who said Independence talk was making international business uneasy, and Government should instead be concentrating on the Base closures and employment.

"I would agree with him to the extent that if the whole issue would go away, I think that would be the happiest and quickest solution,'' Sir David said yesterday.

"However desirable that solution might be, my perception is the matter isn't going to go away.'' Withdrawing the bill "probably would cause delay,'' and "not the final resolution'' of the issue.

"I think it is vitally important now that there has been a commitment to hold a referendum, that it be held and held as quickly as possible.'' He felt a Commission of Inquiry was "not a prerequisite'' to gathering information about Independence.

Sir David, who is chairman of the Bank of Butterfield, said he returned on Saturday from ten days of meetings with mutual fund operators, investors, and bank clients in New York, Boston, London, and the Isle of Man.

"People are very well aware of the position here, and uncertainty does create real problems,'' he said.

Former UBP St. George's North MP Mr.

Phillip Smith attacked leaders of both the UBP and Progressive Labour Party yesterday for not speaking positively about "the benefits of Independence''.

"The public is waiting to hear from the Premier,'' Mr. Smith said.

"They're sick and tired of him talking out of both sides of his mouth.'' The planned Commission of Inquiry was "a smokescreen,'' he said. "If the Premier wants to lead the country to Independence, and this applies to the Leader of the Opposition as well, they have to convince the people of the country that they know what Independence is all about.

"They're leading from behind.'' The party leaders were adding to the uncertainty created by the Base closures, he said.

"I can support Independence, but if I had to vote on it right now, I would vote against it. None of them have convinced me that I could trust them to lead me into Independence.'' Mr. Smith said most UBP members "would like to get rid of'' Premier Swan because they were unhappy about the Independence initiative.

But "it won't happen,'' he said. "They're afraid that a change of leadership right now would result in a change of Government.'' In February, when Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto abstained, the bill squeaked through the House in a 20-18 vote. Recently, backbenchers the Hon. John Stubbs and Mr.

Trevor Moniz have added their criticisms, and Mr. Woolridge would not say whether he would support the bill a second time.