Actually this is another of my pet peeves
To me the rule that you need the spell on your list is entirely unneeded and unwanted.
Take an old AD&D Dungeon scenario I ran the other year. It places a scroll of Speak with Plants near the start, and later features a tree that might provide some information.
Imagine my frustration and dismay when I realize that in 5e, only Druids can use this scroll.
But Druids are already the only ones that can speak with plants! They don't need the scroll! The scroll is there to allow groups without a Druid to have a chance of talking to the tree!
The same with a high-level adventure where Plane Shift takes you to the next stage of the adventure. Can you make it a short adventure to buy a scroll if your group only contains a Bard spellcaster? No.
Or even the case where the party is given an especially difficult mission, and the questgiver is kind enough to provide a Ressurrection scroll. Does that help the party that needs it - the party without a Bard or Cleric? Noooo. In fact, it is only useful to the party that needs it the least, the party that already have a Cleric! And does it help the party when their Cleric has died? Nooooooo
And does scrolls give poor Sorcerers hope that they might fulfil some of the utility you'd expect from the party's arcane caster, by collecting scrolls of spells they cannot cast and would never have chosen to know even if they could? No......... Instead, the group's fighter stands a better chance of using the scroll than you, simply because she's an Eldritch Knight.
---
Scrolls would have been a great way of providing parties with at least some kind of cross-caster capability, and WotCs senselessly harsh rule
blews it.
