Talk:Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate

Myanmar Low‑importance

Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate is within the scope of WikiProject Myanmar, a project to improve all Myanmar related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Wikipedia aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Myanmar-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.MyanmarWikipedia:WikiProject MyanmarTemplate:WikiProject MyanmarMyanmar articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : offices, ministries and politicians of current cabinet, requested articles on Burmese subjects and articles on smaller towns and villages
Expand : Top-importance and High-importance articles
Photo : add photos of incumbent politicians
Stubs : Category:Myanmar stubs
Update : offices, ministries and politicians of current cabinet after 2015 election
Other : If you know Burmese, go on the Myanmar Wikipedia and make sure each article on the English Wikipedia has one in Burmese also

Law Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Burmese compensation?![edit]

Did the Burmese receive any compensation? I am nearly enraged that not a single thought has been given to this idea in the wiki article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.14.35 (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This question is both uncivil and flawed. A single thought has been given to this, hence the reference to the War Damages Act. No compensation was paid. I shall amend to make this clearer.--Lucifer 14:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the logic?[edit]

The article says something, but it is hard to make sense of it. The compensation requested probably wasn't too large, considering and comparing the somewhat primitive nature of oil industry pre-WW2 and the size of a 50-million people, much industrialized and capitalized british economy.

By paying like an officer and a gentleman, Britain have could expected that in any future conflict, private companies will have trust in the gov't and cooperate fully to deny resources to any enemy (i.e. russians and WARPAC), knowing spoils will be returned after V-day. By making a law to deny it, Blighty essentially incentivized capitalists to become traitors for the reds, because they know for sure the gov't of their own country will fsck them all over, but they still can have hope the enemy will be more generous. Not to mention the creation of any Retro-Active Laws is an absolute "fire alarm" in most company investments policy books, that mandates immediate start of capital flee. 82.131.134.66 (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]