...
Standard fallacy by misguided and/or delusional people.
The problem is far more complex that what you tend to show. There are currently two (primary) implemented proposals for on chain scaling:
1) Segwit via soft fork (Core).
2) Block size increase via hard fork (maximum 16 MB) (BU).
Okay, so the BU crowd wants to scale via a hard fork. But why this specific proposal? There are other, much more reasonable ones (e.g. the one with 17% yearly growth) that could work. I am in support of a hard fork post-Segwit, but I'm surely not going to support random node operators voting on these limits up to an absurdly large limit (16x higher than what is currently available).
Only problem is that big blockers realizes that even 20MB blocks cannot accommodate the transaction volume they speak of, nor does it solve 10min confirmation time. So other layers
must be implemented which cannot (efficiently) be done without segwit. So they're just trying to hold segwit hostage.