In the 1st century Agricola wasn't allowed to finish up the conquests of Scotland and Ireland (there's a promontory n of Dublin that appears to have been a Roman presence in Ireland). Hadrian's predecessor Trajan was one of the greatest conquerors ever to hold the office of Emperor, whereas Hadrian's forte was in buggering pretty young boys, such as Antinoos. When Antinoos died, Hadrian started a cult to worship the catamite and bilt a town in Egypt, naming it after the dead 'man'. Hadrian's accession foreshadowed the later decadence of the upper echelons of Roman politics. Hadrian decided to define borders for the Empire and rely on alliances built on trade and patronage, a common practice Rome used to create buffer states on their borders. During a later (the second) expansion into what we now call Scotland, the Antonine Wall was put up. Manpower was again needed elsewhere, so the Antonine Wall was abandoned for a time, during the third century (and third expansion) into Scotland was reoccupied, and abandoned apparently for good after the locals simmered down.
Scotland was not reoccurred. The Romans never got beyond the lowland boundary area
Nice try though. Keep throwing out that cut and paste with no attribution
Basically Rome never conquered most of Scotland because there was nothing there that was worth the cost of conquering and holding it. Southern Britain was rich by comparison. By the end of their rule the British tribes south of the wall were Romanized, and the withdrawal of the legions left them open to conquest by the Germanic tribes who were being displaced by the Franks and Huns. The same happened to the Celtic tribes of Gaul. Generations of Pax Romana left them without the warrior culture that had allowed them to take most of Europe in earlier times.