Should Britain have a written constitution?

Nay.

One look at the US and the SNP should tell us why a constitution is a bad thing.

It will be subtly political and hard to change. Plus to be honest, the status quo is fine.

I will tell you what will be in that written constitution:
Illegal wars

Privatisation

Replacement of Trident nuclear weapons at a cost of £100 billion

Growth and investment in the economy concentrated in London and the south east

More children and people living in poverty

Britain's debt rising about the current £1.5 trillion mark

More foodbanks

11% pay rise for MP's while the rest of us don't even get a 1% pay rise

More big corporations dominating the British economy and dodging tax

£25 billion of cuts

More banking and financial crashes

HS2 railway line

A cut to Scotland's budget

Scrapping of the Barnett formula

This is all if Scotland does not vote Yes in September. Did I miss anything?

No it should stay unwritten. For the reason, an unwritten constitution is easy to change. Where as America for example struggle to change a written constitution,there are a lot more hindrances, therefore they still sell guns with your grocery.

This isn't a shopping list lol. It will be able to be changed (minor changes) in Parliament or disposed (if the majority of the population decides to rewrite or something).

It isn't as clear cut like that though, yes that's the fundamental
fundamental, it is more complicated. That's why guns are still sold in America despite the shootings of psychopaths and gang warfare

The difference is America has a group to support the existence of guns, there isn't anywhere near as much support in the UK. It doesn't need to be as liberal as the US.

But that's being subjective to guns, what about other issues? It is better to leave it unwritten

The main ideological disconnect is that those supporting a codified constitution believe that such a thing is an effective defender of public rights and liberties; it's the wrong way round. In fact, countries which are respectful of rights and liberties and the rule of law tend to have long-lasting constitutions.

Codified constitutions only come about a) following the failure of a previous state/constitution, requiring the complete rewrite of the new one, or b) following independence from another country, requiring a local state of affairs to be made explicit quickly.

Britain meets neither of these requirements: it's been independent for hundreds of years and even accounting for those who advocate constitutional change, nobody believes the present constitution has failed or is so bad that it would need to be entirely rewritten.

The privacy violations in the last few years demonstrate the necessity of a constitution.

A codified constitution has not helped various other countries with codified constitutions to stop the very same thing, either. Look at the United States. France also has extensive internal espionage.

I don't deny there's a problem, but such ideas like this are big, flashy, exciting - but wholly useless. The best route is to improve the mechanisms by which Parliament can hold the Executive to account.