I’ve been thinking about this for a while. For places such as Canada and Australia, who became dominions of the British empire. The line between independence and being subject to Britain’s whim was already pretty blurry. They effectively have gotten their independence through a spectrum over the years. As for colonies in Africa, it’s my understanding that Britain merely allowed the nations to become independent without major fighting that would result in a British defeat, right? Was the US the only country to have done this? Was the American revolution a tad pointless due that it is likely “the US” would have become independent anyway?
Ireland was one of England’s oldest colonies that fought for autonomy and independence over the centuries. Myself, u/Rimbaud82, and u/KingOfTheRiverlands detail this under What was the status of Ireland within the British Empire?
And as you said the line between independence and British subject was blurry, certainly the case with Ireland after the War of Independence, I have an answer covering this under What were relations like between Ireland and the UK between 1922 and 1946
While an actual expert will hopefully comment in detail, it is absolutely incorrect that the British 'allowed' African nations 'to become independent without major fighting.'
The Mau-Mau Uprising was an extremely bloody affair, where a supposed British victory nevertheless made their position in Kenya- and perhaps East Africa generally- untenable.
Pending a detailed overview of that conflict, you might be interested in u/TheBobJamesBob and /u/Bernardito talking about British counterinsurgencies in the period of decolonisation here.