The government has announced that it will be publishing its white paper on the future of the BBC next month. It’s a white paper that needs to be scrutinised very carefully: for what it will say about the future size and scope of the BBC, and above all for how it proposes to protect the editorial independence of the corporation.

Over the years I’ve watched a lot of BBC licence fee and charter negotiations – both from inside the BBC, often at pretty close quarters, and these days from the outside. My conclusion is that in the end it comes down to two things – money and politics. That is still the case today. What is different about this round of negotiations is that so far we have had a consultation process that has been heavily skewed and one which has raised serious concerns about the BBC’s future independence.

Even before any serious debate had started, we saw George Osborne take away a sizable chunk of the BBC’s income with his demand that the BBC fund the licence fee for the over 75s. In return the BBC thought it had extracted a commitment from the government that the licence fee from 2017 would rise in line with inflation. But now even this “promise” has been called into question.

The whole point of a public broadcaster is that it is editorially independent

After that lightning raid, the secretary of state for culture, media and sport, John Whittingdale, came belatedly into the picture to promise an open and transparent consultation process. He opened by questioning whether the BBC should try to be all things to all people, and whether it should be broadcasting programmes such as The Voice. He followed that up by appointing a consultative group most of whose members had ties to rival commercial media groups. Then he commissioned a report on the BBC’s market impact, the main point of which seemed to be to show how its commercial rivals could make more money if the BBC did less. It’s been a very rum version of an open and transparent process.

Then there was the consultation with the general public. The government got 192,000 replies from that – the second highest number of replies ever to a public consultation. But the secretary of state didn’t seem to like most of the answers he got. He said the consultation was not “wholly representative of public opinion at large”. As a result, he said, he was going to reopen the process with a new series of focus groups.

What we have had so far is a consultation process where not only do you ask the BBC’s commercial rivals what they think of the BBC, but you also ignore the responses from members of the public if they don’t give you the answers you want.

Finally, we have a secretary of state who, if we are to believe some of the weekend media stories about his activities (no not those stories), seems to believe that the best way to enhance children’s programming is to take money away from the BBC Children’s and give it to commercial companies. It’s been a rum process indeed.

But the most important issue of all arises from the recent set of proposals to reform the governance of the corporation. This brings into question the continued editorial independence of the BBC. The whole point of a public broadcaster is that it is editorially independent: from commercial ties and from political pressure – including from the government.

Under these proposals the BBC Trust would be abolished and regulation of the BBC would pass to Ofcom. There would be just a single board running the BBC. On that board there would be a non-executive chairman and deputy chairman, three executives from the BBC and then four more non-executive members representing the four nations of the UK. The public interest would be safeguarded by the chairman, the deputy and the other non-executives. They would be in a majority on the board. Remember this new BBC board is going to be the group that takes the top-level editorial decisions. It is going to be the board that decides what to do about controversial programmes. It is going to be the board that gets the phone calls from politicians when there is serious row about a programme.

White paper on future of BBC to be published in May, minister says Read more

So how are these non-executives going to be appointed? Well it turns out they are going to be appointed by the government. Sir David Clementi, the banker – also incidentally appointed by the government – who wrote the report thinks this is a good idea. So too does the secretary of state.

So let me just make sure I’ve got this right. The people who are supposed to safeguard the editorial independence of the BBC – to safeguard it from, among other things, government interference – are going to be appointed by the same government that they are supposed to be protecting the BBC from.

One of the things I’ve been lucky enough to do in the past few years has been to travel to other countries and talk about how the BBC works. When I do, I am always at pains to point out that the BBC is a public broadcaster, not a state broadcaster. It’s an important difference. A state broadcaster is accountable to the government and is run by people appointed by the government. A public broadcaster is run by people independent of government and is ultimately accountable only to the public. An effective independent public broadcaster plays an important role in a healthy functioning democracy.

If carried out, these proposals for the board of the BBC risk putting the BBC on a slippery slope towards becoming a state broadcaster. There needs to be a big rethink on this before the publication of the white paper.

• This article is based on a speech Phil Harding gave to the Voice of the Viewer and Listener conference on 19 April