yeah. crossrail, thameslink and northern line to battersea really help me. I live nearly 200 miles away.
And HSTs linking 7 cities, the closest of which are about 400 miles from me really help me. Ditto the EGIP, etc...
Incidentally, Crossrail, Thameslink and Northern Line to Battersea don't help me either and I live just over 10 miles away from the closest station on one of those routes (in a nearby big town, where, neither being inside London - though typically treated as part of it when it comes to investment - the bus from my mid-sized town to it runs every two hours, or I can change between two hourly buses. And that's my PT options, and it's not cheap. I say this to explain that I'm jealous of London's transport too).
Clearly that Scottish investment (UK money given out by the Scottish Government) doesn't help the whole country - ie the UK. Nor does that London investment (a mix of local taxes and income from fares given out by the GLA and UK money given out by the UK Government). But if Scotland is a 'country', then London is functionally likewise its own 'country' rather than part of some 'country' of 'England' that functionally doesn't exist in the parameters of infrastructure funding (other than within the Barnett formula) - or anything much other than sports!
By 'country', when referring to Scotland, what seems to being meant by AndrewE is 'devolved region', rather than the sovereign state that ceased to exist by the 1707 Act of Union. London is a devolved region too (and effectively a different 'country' in a non-literal way, like Scotland is -
here's a Londoner saying it in 2012,
here's a provincial saying it earlier this year and there's loads more where that came from. If you want historical precedence then there's the notion, preserved in 1066 and 1215, that the City of London has a different legal status than the rest of England).
The Scottish investment seems to be benefitting most of their country
Except for most of the ~90% of the population of the country south of Hadrians Wall. Just as the London investment benefits most of their country, except for most of ~85% of the population outside the M25.
Unless, by country you mean 'devolved region' (as you seem to be), in which case I totally agree, but the same is true for both devolved regions, so there's no reason why Scotland doing it is alright, but London doing it isn't.
What's English investment? It literally doesn't exist - Scottish investment only exists because that devolved region gets a block grant of UK investment that they can spend on what they want. 'English investment' is UK investment without a middle man as there's a terrible lack of devolution outside of NI, Wales, Scotland and London.
Because we're talking UK money, none of these regional stuff benefits the whole country. Scotland and London have both invested to the benefit of their whole region, but there's about 80% of the population of the country that don't live in either region!
I have no problem with these devolved regions existing and investing in infrastructure - I want more of that for the bits of the UK that lack it. I just don't get this double standard where Scotland investing UK money on rail projects is fine, but London investing UK money on rail projects (part funded by fares and local taxes) isn't.