Independence is vastly overrated
Most BBC output cannot be described as "independent". What's independent about Eastenders, or Only Connect or Stricly? - Or even the overwhelming majority of the BBC radio, sports, childrens', or non-factual output?
When people talk about the independence of the BBC all they are referring to is the tiny amount of their total output that is related to news reporting, parts of Radio 4, the odd TV/Radio news programme and a few political or current affairs productions that are purposely run in unpopular slots. Of their 8 TV channels (excluding BBC Parliament which is government financed) and dozens of radio stations (about 40 locals and a dozen-ish nationals) almost none of their content is political or in any way controversial - so can't be counted as "independent", as it has nothing to be independent from.
None of this so-called independence is worth the £3Bn that is spent on the BBC. You could get the same sort of variety of views by selling off almost all of the BBC's assets and funding an "independent" news and current affairs programme source from a levy on all the "freed" BBC, now new commercial stations. Those programmes could then be offered back to the (truly) independent TV & radio stations for free - payback for the levy.
Even if the government does decide to keep the BBC under its present level of control, we need to remember that the free and independent BBC only exists while the government of the day allows it to. The idea that it is some sort of bastion against totalitarianism is ridiculous: not only would the BBC be the first up against the wall, come the revolution but by presenting a centralised, bureaucratic, heirarchical, single "corporation" they are far easier to control, influence or pressurise than a collection of financially free and intellectually diverse (though the combination of intellectual and TV is impossible) TV or radio stations would ever be.