Is it true that the British constitution is often described as 'unwritten'?

Okay, here's an explanation for the "unwritten constitution" question: The British constitution is a bit of a historical patchwork, unlike many countries that have a single, codified document outlining the rules of the land. Instead, it's built up over centuries through various sources. Think of it like a really old house that's had additions and renovations over time – there's no single blueprint. These sources include Acts of Parliament, like the laws passed by the government, court judgements that set legal precedents, and long-standing conventions, which are unwritten rules and practices that everyone accepts as part of how the country is governed. For example, the idea that the Prime Minister should be a member of the House of Commons is a convention. Magna Carta, signed in 1215, is one of the earliest documents that has contributed to the constitution. Because it's a collection of different things, rather than one single written document, it's often described as 'unwritten'. While some parts are written down, the overall system isn't contained in one place, making the statement that it's 'unwritten' true.