The "scrum people" you refer to are supposed to be the team itself, so it sounds like you're describing some scrummerfall-type organization. I agree ceremony would be largely meaningless and worthy of scorn in such a place.
Can you describe a scenario you were involved with where these other people weren't listening to the team's protestations, or were you just giving a hypothetical?
My favorite ceremony in Scrum is the retrospective because that's where we get to factor protests and pains into our backlog.
Scrum is not a panacea, it's a form of agile that even big globo-corpo can appreciate and that's why it's so widely deployed. Low cost certifications and copy-cat'ism.
If you run Scrum the way it's trained, it is only effective at directing the people and planning. The developers need to ensure that non-functional requirements around code quality, all the -ilities really, are factored into the work that the team does - you do NOT get that with Scrum. This is my biggest complaint about Scrum is its utter silence on development standards. It is important as developers that we establish what our standards are and hold ourselves to those standards. You could say that the place for that in Scrum is the Team Working Agreement (like house rules), but again, there's no guidance that "Developers shall define the standard of quality for their work products...", etc.
Can you describe a scenario you were involved with where these other people weren't listening to the team's protestations, or were you just giving a hypothetical?
My favorite ceremony in Scrum is the retrospective because that's where we get to factor protests and pains into our backlog.