PeroK said:
Yes.
Invariance is more specific. Newton's second law is exactly the same in all inertial reference frames: $$\vec F = m \vec a$$Note that ##m##, ##|\vec F|## and ##|\vec a|## are invariant quantities.
That's a good example! The question in #1 is pretty subtle, and it's important to understand all theoretical physics starting from classical mechanics to relativistic QFT and general relativity.
What you are here referring to is the physical equivalence of the physical laws when discribed in inertial reference frames. It means that it is impossible by any observation of Nature to define an "absolute inertial frame of reference". You can only observe the relative motion with constant velocity of two inertial frames. If you are put in a closed box, which is at rest in some inertial frame of reference you don't have a chance to figure out more than that you are in an inertial frame of reference. It doesn't make sense for you to ask about which specific inertial frame you are sitting at rest.
You can determine, how the equations of motion of bodies must look like from knowing the symmetry properties of the Newtonian spacetime model, defined by the proper Galilei group (a 10 parametric Lie group leading to the corresponding conserved quantities for closed systems, energy, momentum, angular momentum, and center-mass velocity).
Now, as any theory, you can also formulate Newtonian mechanics in a manifest covariant way under general coordinate transformations. The most elegant way is to use the action principle and derive the equations of motion in terms of the Euler-Lagrange equations, which always look the same, no matter which "generalized coordinates" you use, even if they refer to non-inertial frames of reference.
Of course, here you have no physical symmetry principle at work. It's simply rewriting the physical laws in a generally covariant way, and from this "form invariance" of the Euler-Lagrange equations you cannot in any way constrain, how the Lagrangian must definitely look. For that you need the physical symmetry, i.e., Galilei symmetry.
That's why you can formulate also special-relativistic point-particle mechanics with the action principle, leading to the Euler-Lagrange equations, which look the same as in Newtonian mechanics, but of course here you need the Poincare group as the symmetry group to figure out how the Lagrangians must look to be compatible with special relativity.