I think this piece by Tracey Corrigan is basically right. I don't think there is a huge amount to quibble about in respect of Tony Hayward's pay-off, at least anything that is specific to BP. He's getting one year's salary, which is standard. The BP pension scheme has 1/60ths, not rapid accrual like some execs get, so the £600K pension he will get is basically the result of long service (almost 30 years) times high salary. Certainly getting it early and unreduced is a bit galling, but it's not really like the Fred Goodwin case (is Tony Hayward culpable for what has happened to BP in the same way that Fred drove RBS into a wall? I don't think so).
The more important and broader point is whether the level of remuneration on offer in general is justified. As you might expect I think not, in part because I just don't see how one indiviudal can really exercise control over such a large organisation and as such require such rewards. And this is without getting into motivation. But that's a systemic issue, not a BP one.
PS. Hayward's salary is only a bit more than Marc Bolland at M&S.