This is a new subject to me. I can't help but notice that "Britannia Inferior" wasn't your typical Roman Province, but more of a buffer zone between the more Romanised South and Scotland. How true is this?
It looks like the region was controlled by forts with York being the capital, and that the people outside of these strongholds were semi-independent. Were the tribes in Northern England more "wild" than their Scottish counterparts who seemed to have some kind of organisation?
Britannia Superior comes across as having a mixed Romano-British culture, far more buildings such as baths and villas, whereas Northern England has fort after fort. This website has a list of Roman ruins in Britain and you can see the obvious disparity between the two areas. It wouldn't surprise me that when Hadrians Wall was built, the south side of the wall was far from being some kind of safe zone. Any information would be great as I wrap my mind around this time period!
As Martin Millet pointed out in The Romanization of Britain the extent to which Roman lifestyle took hold in a region is highly dependent, or at least highly correlated, with its political organization before the conquest. Southern England was divided between numerous kingdoms with distinct identifies and loci of political power. These loci were appropriated by the Roman conquerors as they asserted control over the countryside. In northern England there were not strongly defined political entities before the conquest and so the Romans did not have anything to work with. And as there was no defined policy of romanization there was no incentive to create this organization ex nihilo.
This doesn't mean that Yorkshire was covered in wild, unnamed tribes, the region was under Roman control. It is just that the Roman style of social and political organization doesn't seem to have taken hold.