You can hardly blame Scotland for the lack of railway investment in the North of England.
Bottom line is the pocket money being given by Westminster to Scotland isn't enough.
Why?
Just because the percentage is lower in scotland doesn't mean that transport in Scotland is underfunded, it just means that there are less lines that are suitable for actual electrification.
YOu can't use a simplistic comparison of electrified route miles when Scotland posseses the majority of all the single line running in the country.
Can you demonstrate that there are reasonable routes that can be electrified to get the percentage in Scotland up to the UK-average level?
I think you will be really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I know it doesn't fit in with the SNPs narrative of a conspiracy against Scotland but it is unreasonable to expect our limited transport resources to be expended in places where they will be ineffective just because some nationalists demand that "their country" deserves more money.
EDIT:
And using this argument Ic an blame Scotland for "underfunding" of railways in the North of England.
The same argument that applies for Scotland also applies for Cornwall.
Why should Cornwall not have any electrified railways at all when the national average is 40%?
Or my native Lincolnshire which has a
lot less than 40% of route miles electrified.