Well, that went well.

David Cameron came to Scottish Widows in Edinburgh and pleaded with Scots not to break up the Union just because they wanted to "give the effing Tories a kicking". The twitterati replied almost immediately that Scots had been doing that for 25 years and they're still here.

Meanwhile, John Prescott ripped up the spirit of cross-party unity by saying that the Tories had been ripping families apart for years. Ed Miliband said something unmemorable and no-one bothered about poor old Nick Clegg. Fortunately for the UK party leaders, the latest Survation poll appearing to show a setback for Yes, covered their embarrassment.

Yesterday, in the absence of any real content (rumours of promises on matters such as NHS funding having proved unfounded), it was the Prime Minister's language that hit the headlines. I don't know what the Scottish widows would have made of it, but it was a first for the debate.

A rather abstruse semantic debate ensued over whether "effing" is the same as the f-word. Tory aides were anxious to point out that "effing" isn't a swear word, though I think most people got his drift. I supposed the Prime Minister was trying to sound sincere, using the language of the street.

But I'm not sure that Scots, who are no slouches when it comes to the old anglo-saxon usage, really appreciate him using language he wouldn't have used in the House of Commons. Like the protestations that he would be "heartbroken" if Scotland left the Union, it sounded just a little insincere. If he had really wanted to demonstrate his sincerity, he should surely have engaged in a debate with the First Minister of Scotland instead of talking to an invited audience in a financial institution.

The refusal to debate with Mr Salmond has been one of the more puzzling decisions made by the Unionist camp. I genuinely believe Mr Cameron would have made a much better job than Alistair Darling, certainly in the second TV debate.

Mr Cameron would have shown that he had the courage of his convictions (he is the self-confessed leader of the Unionist campaign) and that he wasn't afraid of taking on Mr Salmond on his home turf, which is also UK turf.

That would have generated considerable respect among Scots who may not like "effing Tories", but like to see people put their money where their mouths are.

Instead, his appearance was accompanied by the now-familiar warnings from Standard Life, BP, Royal Bank and so on that they will up sticks and leave if the Scots exercise their democratic right in the wrong way. This all added to the image of the Union being bound up with the interests of bankers, financiers and international business, most of whom made similar negative noises before the devolution referendum. Scots have got long memories. And "effing bankers" aren't exactly the most popular people at present. We also heard a restatement from the governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney, that a currency union was "incompatible with sovereignty".

Does anyone seriously believe that Standard Life would shift its 5,000 employees from Scotland to London, one of the most expensive cities in the world? Is BP, which despite its name is no longer a British company, seriously going to abandon Scotland just as the industry is pouring investment into a new oil boom in the North Sea? Does anyone care if Royal Bank of Scotland moves its brass plate to London, where the vast majority of its business is anyway conducted, thus relieving an independent Scotland of the responsibility for bailing it out in the next banking crash?

In the global market, would international companies base crucial financial decisions on Scotland becoming nominally independent?

But we'd better get used to all of this because, in the next seven days, there are going to be a great deal more warnings about financial and economic disruption. Now that the love bombing is over, bombs of a different kind will start falling on Scotland in the effort to persuade voters that the UK's offer is one that they really cannot afford to refuse. Most of the "Yes shocks" and "independence warnings" will be recycled from the Project Fear back catalogue: mortgage rates up, pensions down, interest rates up, oil down.

But the strategy now appears to hype up financial uncertainty over currency in order to create an air of panic and even a flight of funds from Scotland.

This is a dangerous game, of course, since the pound will no doubt wobble about on the exchanges and the stock market will fall. These fluctuations happen all the time in financial markets. The pound fell 20 per cent after the crash.

However, if wealthy Scots can be persuaded that the economic prospects are so dire that they start taking their money out of Scotland, then very quickly the newspapers and TV will be running the kind of crisis headlines that we haven't seen since 2008.

If the Yes opinion poll drive has been halted, as appears to be the case according to one poll, then the story will shift from Panic in Westminster to Peak Salmond. People will speculate that the Yes surge has been like Clegg-mania in the 2010 General Election; an emotional spasm of anti-political sentiment as people registered their loathing of the political establishment. But in the end, they will return to the orthodox parties.

I'm not saying this is what will happen; indeed, I think the Scots have made a fundamental psychological break with the UK. However, voters do not like conflict at the best of times, and the idea that there is going to be financial apocalypse if they vote Yes is bound to weigh on their minds next week. Yesterday's visits happened without incident but, if the Yes campaign comes under pressure, no doubt some people will get angry on the streets and this will be faithfully recorded as evidence that Scotland is turning nasty. Mr Salmond will be pursued on the streets by cameras and shouts of "will you resign". The Daily Mail will run headlines about how the referendum has created fissures and divisions.

That, anyway, is the script as written by the UK Government. The people of Scotland are perfectly capable of writing a very different one. This referendum campaign has demonstrated beyond doubt that Scotland is a wealthy country by international standards with many economic advantages.

Even Mr Cameron accepts that Scotland could be a successful small nation in Europe. And anyway, this debate has never been about crude retail politics. The Scottish voters are not as responsive to warnings of higher taxation as those in the south of England. They have shown in their voting choices over the past 25 years that they have other priorities.

This has been a remarkable campaign that has energised Scotland and restored faith in the political process. You sense this confidence rising from the streets across Scotland.

A majority clearly believe that Scotland should be free to create its own more egalitarian society. People don't want to return to the old order with the same old politics. And this "effing referendum" isn't over yet.