The master-slave arrangement doesn't strictly solve the metastability issue, AFAICT. It is commonly used to cross over between different clock domains of synchronous logic, but I don't quite see what improvement it does on purely asynchronous input (the slave gets a clear state, but it may be derived of a metastable transition anyway). It could simply be an incomplete description, as you could add a hysteresis function by combining the outputs of the two registers.
As for the differences between SR, JK, D or even T flip-flops, it tends to boil down to which inputs are asynchronous. The simplest SR latches do not toggle with S=R=1, but simply keep whichever state was kept last (or in the worst case, oscillate with a gate delay), that's the race. The JK, on the other hand, will transition on the clock edge - synchronous behaviour. It is thus their nature that a T register can only be synchronous, and an asynchronous D latch is transparent while latching. The SR register you describe doesn't have the T function, which can be useful depending on the function. For instance, a ripple counter can be described purely with T registers. Simply put, the JK gives you a complete set of operations (set, clear, toggle, and no-op) without costing an extra control line.
In synchronous logic, we frequently use wide sets of registers to implement a larger function. It doesn't strictly matter there if we use D, T, JK or whatever registers, as we can just redesign the logic function that drives them to include feedback (unless we need to build that logic - i.e. in 74 family logic). That's why FPGAs and such tend to have only D registers in their schematic representations. What does matter is that the register itself introduces the synchronous operation - steady state until the next clock. This allows combining plenty of side-by-side registers or ones with feedback functions.
As for the choice between delayed-pulse and clock-synchronous logic, it's not an automatic one. Some early computers (f.e. PDP-1) and even some highly energy efficient ones (f.e. GreenArrays) use the delayed-pulse design, and it is in fact comparable to a pipelined design in synchronous logic. The Carry-Save adder demonstrates the crucial difference - it's a pipelined design where you actually don't have a known value, not even intermediate, until the pulse from the last new value to enter has come out the other end. If you know at the logic design stage repeated accumulation but only the final sum is used, it may be the best choice. Meanwhile, FPGAs are typically designed with only a few clock nets and therefore do not adapt well to delayed-pulse logic (though it can be approximated with clock gating).
I hope this is more helpful than further confusing... interesting questions!
Very fundamental thing. Flip-flops are composed of logic circuits that have cross coupled feedback such that they "hold" the last established state. These bi-stable circuits are often composed of inverting gate elements that invert twice around their cross coupled feedback to realize the latched state.
Simply the Q output is the output of one side of the bi-stable circuit. The Q' is the other output which, in the case of cases where inverted logic elements are used, ends up being the logical inversion of the Q output.
So if Q = 1 the Q' = 0. Likewise of Q = 0 the Q' = 1.
Best Answer
I used almost this exact same circuit many years ago when I did hardware design and I would need a better memory and time to remember the details. It's not a "deskewed flip-flop" but a "deskewing flip-flop". The idea is to make sure the asyncronous input to the system occurs in line with the system clock and doesn't change erratically. The flipflops help latch the data in and hold it stable till the system gets a chance to handle it.
I wish I had the time to think this through but it's been almost 20 years since I've done this and I think I might be getting old.