Why were they not in favor of propping up the auto industry?

Of course they were. No president or party was going to sit by and watch 3 million jobs disappear in a chain reaction if GM went under.

Was it because the auto industry employed people with low incomes and had unions?

The deal was easily something President Romney could have put together with some stooges from Bain Capital. GM was forced to declare bankruptcy before they could get bailout money, and a two-tier system of wages was set up for the workers, creating resentment and undermining the union. If that wasn't enough, liability was eliminated for lawsuits on pre-bailout cars - so the families of those killed by faulty ignition switches are left with whatever GM decides to give them.

Leaving in a fit of pique is going to hurt the banks more the Scots. Does Lloyds really want all that Scottish oil drilled on someone else's credit or their own? Iceland has been able to get credit after they defaulted on debts, which an independent Scotland wont have (to start with, anyway).

Because Ireland did so well under the yoke of British Imperialism.

This is like saying someone MUST divorce their spouse because they can always just get back together.

Hardly. That some countries have done "poorly" after throwing off foreign rule is not a knock against independence. It's a knock against imperialism.

While continuing to be protected by UK's nuclear deterrent, so the principle of the stance is somewhat compromised.

That's okay, they'll just get themselves some Tiger Stones, they're about as relevant as your concerns over nuclear deterrence.

That's easy. Scotland is the last western country in existence that's arguably feudal in nature.

Hmm, citation vs empty tautology, which to choose....

No, I'm afraid you don't understand a few things. Firstly, Scotland's oil is small beer on the global stage. The North Sea produces ~1.5m bpd, OPEC alone is something like 30m.

Wait, what? Why are you comparing a single country's output to a dozen other countries combined? Any oil rich area can be hand waved away by that line of reasoning: Alaska, Kuwait, North Dakota, Louisiana....

Who's going to reject Scotland, anyway? Scotland, like California, sends in more tax money than they get back, and they're sitting on huge oil reserves in the North Sea. Or are you afraid your family is going to lose it's feudal estate with it's captive population of serfs?

Charlie Stross recently posted a very good take on this: This is a permanent change.

East and West Germany might disagree.

Any voter should consider the probable situation twenty or fourty years from now, not whatever happens in a year or two.

They're probably looking off at finally getting free from feudalism. Half the land in the country is owned by less than 500 families, which they lease out to the serfs, I mean renters, for a profit.

An 18 year old sitting on a gold mine - like when LeBron James and his mom went out and got some new cars before he ever got his first paycheck with the Cavs. Scotland has great drilling opportunities in the North Sea; it's one reason why Cameron has been fighting so hard to keep the Scots in the family.

Which is like Microsoft threatening to offshore parts of their business if their workers get too uppity. Scotland is going to remain on the British Pound, so the banks are working on FUD for the time being.

For starters, to finally get out from under the yoke of feudalism. No, I'm not kidding. 432 families own half the land in Scotland, which they then rent out to the peasants, I mean proles, I mean for a profit. Any time the Scots try and do something about it, it goes nowhere fast in parliament.

The political side would make more sense if Scotland was greatly different than UK culturally and had a significant short-term history of English subjugation.

Aside from the above, why is Scotland's desire for independence any different than Canada's? Or Australia's? Being a part of the UK was never a choice of the Scottish people.

The economics make less sense -- Scotland has been economically integrated with the larger UK for a long time.

The economically questionable part is not ditching the British Pound at the same time they're ditching the British Crown. Having a sovereign government without a sovereign currency can be extremely risky - just ask Greece or Ireland. Scotland should fare better, though, because of drilling opportunities in the North Sea.

So you're trolling? Cases protect the screen from scratches when you accidentally drop the phone, fragility has nothing to do with it.

thieves

You mean the self-centered elitist pricks who want all the benefits of living in an advanced society while paying for none of its costs.

Exactly, I am not sure why Apple tries so hard to make their device so thin.

So it's not the size of a ham sandwich by the time you put the case on. Slimmer phone = slimmer overall size when you slap a case on it.