True Wales' decision not to apply for official designation was not a surprise to me, it was widely mooted a fortnight or so before the closing date for applications to lead the campaigns.
I made my semi-jocular application to lead the No campaign because I knew, beforehand, that True Wales was seriously considering not making a bid.
Supporters of the Yes Campaign have been unjustly condemnatory of True Wales for not registering as an official No campaign.
I can appreciate the Yes frustration, but True Wales have not broken any rules or laws by not registering, so if democracy has been in anyway ill served by True Wales' decision not to register, the fault lies with the rules and laws, rather than a group which abided by those rules and laws!
Indeed if there is no official Yes campaign it won't actually be True Wales' fault, it will be mine, for not submitting a good enough bid to succeed as No lead.
So the Yes campaign may, actually, have been hindered by the fact that the only No bidder had miscounted his fingers when measuring the Whisky in the jar before submitting the bid! ---- (This is a Theory not an Admission; Possibly!)
Nevertheless an interesting way of judging a democratic process, one must admit!
A Yes bid was made and a No bid was made – how can it be right or democratic for a valid Yes bid to be rejected just because the No bid was not quite up to scratch? What is democratic about one campaign being dependant on the ability, efficiency and sobriety of its opponent's campaign?