Absolutely - at a risk to themselves. Just like how we can help any of our NATO neighbors at a risk to ourselves. Given the current situation (Russian troops being tied in Ukraine) that risk is very small, but it is there.

There are also certain restrictions for access to information systems for non-allied (formally) countries. If Finland has a formal alliance with Sweden, then the opportunities for cooperation and coordination are much greater. There's much less red tape to worry about, and things will in general go much smoother.

Now, if Sweden doesn't want to be in NATO, then that's an entirely different matter. If they do, then I think we should support that in the best way we can. If that means being a "package deal", then I think that's in our best interests.

Nah, Sweden is essential to have from the Finnish point of view, not just a nice to have. Sweden makes logistics way easier, has a large manpower reserve of fit to serve who could be trained fairly easily in the event of war, is able to manufacture arms and resupply units, has a locally very powerful navy and air force (their army isn't bad either, just lacks a little manpower since they did away with conscription) with capabilities that are quite lacking with their neighbors, etc.

The Finnish and Swedish defense/armed forces have a very good working relationship. Perhaps Sweden isn't essential for NATO, but Sweden is essential for Finland regardless of if we are in NATO or not. Finland without Sweden also loses quite a bit of effectiveness and resilience in terms of providing security in the Baltic Sea area and around the Kola Peninsula.