WE live in strange cart-before-the-horse times. Most of us rush out with an answer, so convinced in this polarised age of our moral right and intellectual superiority, before we even know what the question is; we can all be foolish people.

Ukraine poses nothing but questions to the world, and to each of us as human beings. Scotland is not immune from the need to soul-search in these changed days. What was true a week ago, or what seemed wise a week ago, may not hold any sense today, or may need revised, radically. Can any of us look into our hearts – or more importantly our minds – today and say that events in Ukraine have left our worldviews entirely in tact and unaltered? If so, we may well have found the definition of blind folly.

It’s the biggest, most awkward, political questions which demand ruthless, honest scrutiny and re-evaluation in Scotland today. Do our old assumptions still withstand their stress-tests now that Russia is butchering a free nation and Vladimir Putin has plunged the world into a new Cold War which could soon turn hot? There seems to be six major topics we need to put back under the microscope.

1, Independence. Let’s start with the big one, as independence is the issue which exercises minds the most in Scotland. The pressure here seems to weigh most heavily on the Yes movement. Over the last few days, we’ve seen the disgust that’s greeted comments by senior members of the SNP linking, even tangentially, Ukraine to Scotland. Rightly so. Any equivalence is grotesque no matter how gently it’s framed. Here we get a hint of the problem Ukraine poses for independence campaigners.

Independence, for now at least, is about one thing: winning undecided voters to Yes. In a time of war in Europe, with Britain pitted against Russia together with the rest of the western world, how will undecideds view moves to break up the UK? There’s a "rally to the flag" mood in every western nation currently. Wavering undecided voters may find it unseemly to talk of separation in this climate. Nicola Sturgeon does well to focus her personal narrative on supporting Ukraine right now – colleagues like Michael Russell might be wise to emulate her.

Read more: How does SNP vision of an independent Scotland fit in a world where the threat of war grows daily?

Of course, there’s a flip side here. The UK government’s cruel refusal to open Britain’s doors to Ukrainian refugees makes a case for Scotland controlling its own response to world events.

2, Small nation syndrome. The argument is being made by unionists that Scotland is too small to stand alone in the world now. However, many small nations have taken strong, brave positions against Russia in support of Ukraine. "Smallness" tends to relate to the size of one’s mind. There’s a noticeable cringe within both hardline unionism and the worst elements of the Yes movement at the sight of Scottish politicians taking international positions. Unionist ultras say Nicola Sturgeon should know her place; ugly Yes voices sneer at MPs Stewart McDonald and Alyn Smith for visiting Ukraine, claiming they should fixate on independence campaigning. Both extremes are pitiful and ridiculous. There’s no reason our nation – independent or otherwise – cannot play a significant global role.

More considered unionists may muse, though, about what would happen now if Scotland had voted Yes in 2014, with Alex Salmond most likely still First Minister today.

3, Trident and Nato. The SNP wants an independent Scotland in Nato but Trident ditched. That’s not what Nato wants. How will that play into our constitutional debate? If the SNP says "Trident out"’, but Nato replies "OK, but you’re not getting in our alliance", how will Scottish people react? Which will matter most: pacifism in a time of war, or keeping membership of the most powerful military alliance on Earth? The wider concept of nuclear disarmament also clearly demands some tough re-examination. Of course, an end to "the bomb" should be the goal of all sane human beings, but does anyone put down a gun when they’re trapped in the same room as a lunatic dictator who’s armed to the teeth?

4, Our political landscape. How will it change? The political fringes are disintegrating already. George Galloway’s risible Alliance for Unity party has imploded over his links to Russian media. It’s inevitable Salmond’s Alba Party will collapse at May’s council elections. Two simple words will finish Alba’s ambitions: Russia Today. With some commentators, left and right, still acting as apologists for Putin, how many more careers will end ignominiously?

Read more: We are all now in a war for the future

5, Climate change and net zero. Perhaps the hardest questions involve our necessary desire to dispense with oil and gas and transition to net zero over climate change. Only the wilfully, suicidally, blind don’t support this strategy, as long as it’s enacted in a fashion which doesn’t devastate communities, jobs and lives, particularly in the north-east. But the West is now in an energy war with Russia, and prices were rising hard and fast before the invasion of Ukraine. What’s the right balance to strike as we move from fossil fuels? Of course, any nation able to fully rely on renewables is energy secure. But if we turn off the oil and gas tap too soon will we cause economic agony for ourselves and allies? How do we transition wisely? Why aren’t we talking about this? And why aren’t we discussing whether more nuclear power is needed to transition? An honest energy discussion must happen – but what will that mean for the SNP-Green government pact?

6, Domestic policy. We’re in a Cold War and a global financial catastrophe. How do we pay for the lives we now lead? The SNP’s economic policies are shambolic and based on empty promises at best. Children are going hungry and cold in the UK – but children are already dying in Ukraine. What deal with the devil do we strike here? What needs to give?

The only answer that’s clear throughout this series of questions is this: to maintain some modicum of wellbeing for the poorest in Scotland and the UK, the just solution seems to be a complete re-evaluation of taxation. It cannot be the poor who pay – again. It must be the rich.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald