If you don't like 2.Nc3 Bb4 because of the threat of doubled pawns, there is nothing really wrong with Qc2 and several strong players have used it. 3.Nd5 is considered more critical theoretically and can lead to long lines, but White is doing quite well. But, honestly, the doubled pawns are not weak and you've got the two bishops and a strong center. I wouldn't stress about it.
You can always avoid 2.Nc3 and play g3/Bg2 and wait from Black to commit first. Or you can play d3, Nf3 or maybe even e3/Nge2 and go for it in the center via d4. There really are many viable options available. One of the best things about the English is its flexibility.
Pritchett spend a good deal of time on these sorts of things in his recent book "Play the English" and there is plenty of information in the Donaldson/Hansen book as well. If you're worried about getting a strict roadmap, then I would still recommend Kosten's "Dynamic English".
As for transferring the knight into d5 from f3, it is
completely dependent on the position. If the center is locked and d5 is really weak, then the idea is probably good. If you're opponent is playing for a quick ...f5, then maybe it's too much to ask of your position. But, really, there are no rules about that sort of thing. You just have to examine the specific position and judge whether or not that particular plan is worth while.
Finally, it sounds like you have a lot of questions about handling English positions. I would recommend going over a bunch of well annotated games from the greats (Botvinnik, Karpov, etc) and not focus too much on individual moves or nuance. Instead, check out the standard ideas and mini-plans. The English is more about 'feeling' than theory. I, personally, love Ulf Andersson's handling of the opening.
Good luck with the English,
Nietzsche