Regarding your point 1. I think there's no controversy there: if someone contributes more this person should be recognized, it's not segregation, it's meritocracy. However it could be wise to find some recognition system also for those who just started contributting more, or had a better performance in a short term, as a motivation. Otherwise the trend is that those who perform better will be the only ones capable of receiving promotions.
Regarding the point 2., I think there's a line there between the Scrum team structure and the company structure.
A Scrum team can be built with Developers (from different seniorities and titles), QAs, UX Designers, etc, all of them being part of the Development Team. You don't need to have them all titled "Developers", but in the Scrum team they need to work collaborativelly as one, towards the iteration goal.
On the other side, as a company, I have that senior QA that knows the product from upside-down, and the Junior QA, their experience is different and it doesn't seem offensive or anything to have a higher title for those who know more. Even that I agree with @Barnaby Golden that Lead/Manager titles aren't the best titles from the Scrum perspective, I guess having them aren't a sin for the methodology :)
PS: In a preparation course for an Agile certification that I participated this topic was approached, there was a common sense that this is something that is still not defined (and probably won't in a short term), as companies have different opinions on what could be right or better when promoting people in a lean environment.