Agreed, and perhaps it would be better to focus on this than to do away with scrums all together!

There has to be a concerted effort to have International rules that are played globally including NRL & RFL. No point going off at a tangent if NRL won't adopt changes.
But, on scrums, I'd like a trial of this:
Attacking team ie. team feeding the scrum has to ensure that the ball stays in the scrum for three seconds.
On ball going in ref shouts "in". Then, after three seconds he shouts "ok" after which attacking team may release the ball from the scrum.
What if:-
Defending (non feeding) team pushes/strikes and get the ball out in less than 3 seconds? - that's ok.
What if attacking (feeding) team get ball out of the scrum in less than three seconds? - Tap penalty to defending (non feeding) team once ref has got other team back the 10 metres.
Note, refs often shout "out" anyway now which they should cease doing. It's the defending team's job not to encroach into the ten whilst the ball is still in the scrum.
Results of above suggestion? The scrum would be better packed and tidier (and no more scrum halfs etc in the front row!)
The defending team would have an incentive to push a bit. The attacking team would have to pack in properly to set a solid platform to resist any push from the other team.
Scrums should be retained as a feature of RL for variety and tying in half the defenders and whilst not wanting to go down the Union route, this idea would make them a bit more how they should be.

Whilst scrums themselves are a bit farcial (which we can all agree), they used to at least enable a contest for possession. We simply don't have enough in RL (can't strip the ball any more or rake at the PTB). As a result possession is the holy grail, and there is very little reward for taking a risk. In fact almost all 'risky' plays have dreadful odds and so have all but disappeared (how often except in desperation do we see chips in broken play?)

I can understand issues with not going back to contested scrums, but what I would do is insist on players binding, at least allow the opposition to try to shove over the ball, and where I'd like to encourage a bit of spark is by not allowing any of the players in the scrum to get involved in the first tackle off it - basically the same as anyone offside on a kick chase can't. I'd even go further and say they'd have to keep contact with the scrum until the first tackle is completed. That would get rid of props at stand off in a flash and give the attacking team one tackle to try to make a play backs against backs.

I think it is ok as it is, In saying that, I say it as I don't think it can be improved, I think the laws are there to make the bind and no unbind until the ball is out, it is all about the refs interpretation on the day.

In Australia, it may have been mentioned but they have very few scrums now and I expect it to be gone eventually from the game over there.

I'd be reluctant to start enforcing scum rules again. It'd just open a huge can of worms and before long they'd be a complete mess like they were just before feeding was allowed. Union can't get them right despite obsessing over them for years. Leave well alone.

Just tell them to go on YouTube and find a RL match with contested scrums. Once they see how much of a mess they became that should change there mind

That is the problem in rugby league. We leave laws on the book after they have been discarded on the pitch and then wonder why there are different interpretations from game to game. Perhaps we should start by asking why we still have scrums and work from there.

Well indeed. A lot of rules need looking at again and bringing up to date - as you say a lot have been discarded on the pitch.