>problem with the bch people was that they were reckless and dishonest

Anything relevant you would like to share to back up this claim?

There were opportunists on both sides but the blockstream people argued that purely observational non-mining nodes somehow 'secure' the network despite having no effect and need to be possible to run with a non-broadband connection and less than 100GB of free disk space. Satoshi himself in the Bitcoin whitepaper estimated higher bandwidth and storage requirements for nodes than what the blockstream employed devs said were too high. The point of Wall Street getting involved was to kill Bitcoin as a currency and turn it into a pure speculator's playground. (aka bitcoin as gold)

It’s core principal; that the 1MB blocks use cap was arbitrary and holding back the network, remains 100% true.

The arguments against SPV wallet use in this text don’t ring true for me.

It may be arbitrary, but increasing blocksize to mitigate network congestion is not a good solution, since any cap you set it to will also be arbitrary, and harm decentralisation (block propagation time, node operation costs, etc).

And given how valuable it is to have data in a semi-permanent near-immutable distributed ledger, that block space would be filled up pretty quickly, solving nothing.

Keeping the limit however has inspired a number of novel innovations to use the space more efficiently, including segwit (effectively increasing blocks to 4MB), and taproot.

In short, block size increases are an "easy solution" that don't really solve much.

>since any cap you set it to will also be arbitrary

Unless you done quantitative analysis into the most appropriate blocksize. But that will never happen at this stage.