Constitutional Shortfall?

The lack of a formal, written constitution in Great Britain is, in my opinion, a serious muddling of our Democratic rights and really makes it very unclear as to just how Britain is governed and what we as citizens can do without fear of oppression or obstruction. Here are a few of my own ideas on the best way of instituting a Constitution of Great Britain (you could always call it the Government of Great Britain Act, eh?).

• Instead of having the final Court of Appeals of the British Judicial System vested in the "Law Lords" in the House of Lords, a permanent Supreme Court should be set up to;
  a) Act as the final Court of Appeals.
  b) Oversee any Amendments to the Constitution.
  Of course, this is based more or less on the American system, except that the 9 Lord Justices of a British Supreme Court would not be political appointments as in the United States, but would be elected by the Senior Judges and Queen's Counsel, thus preserving the British judiciaries longstanding tradition of independence.
  Such a Supreme Court would only be overuled by a two thirds majority in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Cases however could be referred to the Court by the politically appointed Attorney General and solicitor General.
  Naturally, any decision reached by the Court would be by a majority of at least 5 to 4.
  
• As far as I can see, having an unelected House of Lords is no great blow to Democracy and is not an "un-dated" dinosaur of another era. No. The worst which can be said against the House of Lords is that it is "quaint", but considering that it is a body which despite it's supposed conservatism actually passed so many Reform Bills and other great acts in the 19th Century, when it had the power to crush said Bills, and when throughout the last century it has passed many Acts pertaining to the betterment of British Society that even the most liberal Civil-Liberties activist would have to confess that the idea of a non-elected house complimenting the elected house has worked, with a mixture of Life and Hereditary Peers.
  Many people seem to forget, that in the great Democracy of the United States which could never do any wrong being born in liberty blah blah blah, that until the early part of the twentieth century the upper house of the United States legislature-the Senate-was composed completely of men of wealth picked by the upper house of the State legislatures-hardly democratic was it? And even now there is growing demand in many states of the Union to have this system reintroduced. The House of Lords is not the equivalent if the Senate.
  The House of Lords has substantially less power than the Senate. For nearly a century now it has been subservient to the House of Commons in parliament. It is composed partly of Aristocrats who despite their inheritance of the position have sufficient education and sense of social responsibility to carry out their meager duties in the House, whilst the Life Peers have had to distinguish themselves particularly in some way to receive a peerage-meaning that nowadays one does not necessarily need to be a millionaire to be a Lord.
  On the other hand, the Senate is composed of men who have to be fabulously rich to be able to become a Senator in the first place. There is no doubt that the Senate is the superior body in the Congress. And seeing that every state in the Union has two Senators, as an exercise in Democracy there are many states which are unequally represented.
  What is needed is that the House of Lords first be stricken of its Legal responsibilities then given greater authority to use it's talents in the best interests of the State through Committees.

I will get round to finishing this later, but I've alot on my plate so, never mind...