"A self-organising Scrum Team needs to commit to Scrum to make it work. "

Seems bizarre to me. They should be committing to make a good product. Scrum might be the wrong thing for them. Perhaps they should do what Agile suggests, and define their own process - "trust the team to get the job done".

Scrum was defined by someone who was not a software developer. Why would anyone assume that it is the best way to approach programming?

The process itself is okay, although it is not a good fit for Behavior-Driven Development, which is more of a workflow. But the damage that Scrum does is that when things are not going well, people think "we are doing Scrum wrong", when in reality the probelm might have nothing to do with Scrum: Is the team managing their test coverage? Are they shifting their integration testing left? Are they collaborating with other teams on intersecting design issues? Are people able to focus, or are they always being interrupted by Slack messages?

There are many problems that can arise that have nothing to do with Scrum, but an obsessive focus on Scrum - "Do Scrum right" - has the danger of distracting people from what might _really_ be wrong.