It really depends on the convention one adopts. Some music theory symbols are pretty standard, but one sees variances among textbooks, theorists, and the style they are analyzing.
I'd say the most standard pattern in American "classical theory" textbooks of the past 40-50 years is to assume in A minor that VI means F major, VII means G major, and viio means G♯dim. I've seen some textbooks that tack on a flat or natural to VII (i.e., ♭VII or even ♮VII to accord with the key signature) to refer to G major, but most books probably omit it. In classical theory, a chord on the seventh scale degree is just assumed by default to be built on the subtonic if major and on the leading tone if diminished. However, that assumption may not be true of pop/jazz theory books, where Roman numerals with accidentals are more commonly employed and there are fewer assumptions about the implications and function of Roman numerals.
For the sixth degree, VI in minor is just assumed in classical theory to be built on the minor sixth scale degree, so no accidental is necessary. In fact, as Richard points out, putting a flat on it could confuse some people -- though again, I think that's dependent on convention. I'm pretty sure I've seen at last one book (I think in pop or jazz theory) that assumed the major scale was the scale, so any deviation from it was notated with an accidental. Thus ♭VI would be necessary to designate F major in that system for any key or mode based on A. (I'd personally avoid using a symbol like ♭VI in a minor key, to avoid confusion, but again it depends on the convention you're working with.)
In the end, I agree with Laurence Payne: if you want to be absolutely clear what chord you're referencing and the specific notes, use a chord symbol (like Fmajor) rather than a Roman numeral. Roman numerals are a shortcut to designate function (not just label chords, though many people confuse this), and the function of a VI or VII or whatever should be pretty clear from context.