Is it true or false that the British constitution is described as 'unwritten' because it isn't confined to a single document?

Okay, let's unpack why the British constitution being "unwritten" is indeed true. When we say unwritten, it doesn't mean there's absolutely nothing written down! Instead, it means the UK doesn't have a single, comprehensive document, like the US Constitution, that lays out all the fundamental laws and principles of governance. The British constitution has evolved over centuries, drawing from various sources. These sources include Acts of Parliament, like the Magna Carta of 1215 which established limits on royal power, common law established through court rulings over time, and conventions, which are unwritten rules and practices that are consistently followed. Think of it like a recipe passed down through generations, with ingredients added and adjusted over time. So, while key elements are written in different places, they're not compiled into one definitive constitution, making the description of it being "unwritten" accurate. It's a flexible system that has adapted to changing times, but it can also be seen as less clear-cut than a codified constitution.