Sep 23, 2014 4 min read

Once it became abundantly clear last Friday morning that Scotland was going to stay within the United Kingdom and that the vote was not even going to be particularly close, some champagne was likely being uncorked at 10 Downing St. and at that unpretentious cottage the Windsor family calls home in the heart of London.

But if they, or any other observers, thought Scotland’s decision to maintain the 307-year union it has had with England would prompt a return to business as usual and everyone could turn their attention again to shearing sheep, sipping tea and playing the football pools at their local pub, the last several days have, to say the least, upended those expectations.

As the referendum vote drew closer and a couple of polls showed the “Yes” vote narrowly ahead, Prime Minister David Cameron panicked and got out the carrots – a whole basket of them, in fact – to keep the Scots in the fold, promising them more power over taxation and social services, above and beyond what was already granted to them through the creation of a Scottish parliament in the late 1990s.

But now that Scotland is not going to bolt from the United Kingdom, the other nations within the union – England, Wales and Northern Ireland – are looking at the bounty that has been pledged to their tartan-wearing neighbors and asking, “Hey, what about us?”

As a result, some of Cameron’s allies within the Conservative Party are threatening their own revolt, and many denizens of England – where 85 percent of those living within the United Kingdom reside – are wondering if they should have a parliament of their own, just like Scotland’s, and why the heck Scottish members of the U.K.’s parliament are allowed to vote on issues that exclusively affect England.

And it gets knottier. Let’s say England is given its own parliament. Wouldn’t it be a rival to the one already seated in London? Since they also have local councils, would the English really want – or need – another stratum of government to navigate?

It could be that by now Cameron and Queen Elizabeth II have already replaced the champagne with much stronger drink.

“But it would be unfair to blame Mr. Cameron for opening this Pandora’s box,” The Wall Street Journal pointed out. “He has had little choice. He is battling powerful historical trends. European history is one long tale of vanished kingdoms and shifting borders.”

If it all seems like the rules of engagement are being made up on the fly, it’s because they pretty much are. The British have no written constitution that lays out the separation of powers and the rights of citizens within the United Kingdom. Instead, as former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw once explained, “The constitution of the United Kingdom exists in hearts and minds and habits as much as it does in law,” having been forged through hundreds of years of legislation and historical documents. The actual rights citizens have, and the divisions of power within government, are not formally codified.

Cameron’s rivals within the Labor Party suggested it’s time for a constitutional convention within the U.K. that will resolve these issues. Critics have suggested that this is merely a dodge and a way to put off vexing decisions for another time. But no matter the motive, the events of the last week have made it clear – it’s time for Britain to join the United States and most of the rest of Europe and adopt a constitution that can actually be seen, interpreted and amended.

They need to heed the canny advice that’s been offered many times over the years in all kinds of circumstances: Get it in writing.