Would have been nice if they did US state flags.
America had a much stronger flag culture than, say, Jersey. We see local and state flags flown at private residences.
I’d certainly use my state if it was in Unicode.
With the exception of England, Scotland and Wales, all of that’s just due to following ISO 3166-1, which covers both countries and significant external territories; you might say that it treats the layer as if they were in some sense similar to the former. Sticking to 3166-1 excuses the Unicode Consortium from getting involved in the politically fraught question of which countries to recognise.
National subdivisions such as the countries of the UK or the states of the US are ISO 3166-2. 3166-2 flags, including US state ones, are in Unicode, but they are non-RGI-meaning vendors are permitted to implement them, but neither required nor recommended to do so, and users should not expect them to be supported except on specific platforms or configurations.
What about England, Scotland and Wales? I think there is a justification for that inconsistency: they are considered to be “countries” (including by 3166-2), even if “countries-within-a-country”. This is not purely a linguistic thing-some international sporting competitions treat them as separate countries, and they have lengthy histories of independence. By contrast, almost nobody considers US states to be “countries”, most never have been independent countries, and even the few of those who have been independent have almost all been so briefly (a few decades at most) rather than for many centuries. Hawaii arguably comes closest to qualifying, but very few Americans would call its contemporary incarnation a “country”. And note that Northern Ireland’s flag is non-RGI, but 3166-2 does not officially classify it as a “country”, and calling it that is politically extremely controversial (it appeals to some Unionists/Loyalists, but offends Nationalists/Republicans.)
In some ways US states are even more independent. England doesn’t have its own government or Capitol, nor does it want one.
Sure Scotland was independent, about 500 years ago, but I don’t think that’s very important to the Unicode consortium.
I suspect the concern is simply upkeep. There 50 state flags, and they are changed pretty frequently.
ISO 3166-1 lists “countries”; it also lists many (but not all) “dependent territories” and one or two “special areas”, but there is a well-established international precedent for treating the latter two as if they were “countries” (see e.g. ccTLDs). However, ISO 3166-2 also labels subdivisions as “countries”, but only in two cases - the UK and the Netherlands. The Netherlands case is irrelevant for flags, because all of its “countries” either have 3166-1 codes too, or else lack flags. But the UK has three “countries” which do have flags, so those flags get RGI. Denmark and France contain “countries” too, but not according to 3166-2; but even if 3166-2 was updated to include them, it still wouldn’t make a difference, since they all either have 3166-1 codes too or lack their own flag.
Maybe, someone will convince Hawaii to declare itself a “country within the United States”, and 3166-2 will then be updated to list Hawaii as a “country” - then the Hawaiian flag would get Unicode RGI status. I really doubt all the other 49 would ever do that though.
I understand the importance of standards, but I think the importance of the word “country” is a bit overblown.
The USSR had countries, some of which had 3166-1 codes, and some of which did not.
And ultimately why would the name country be that important?
During the negotiations over the UN Charter, the Soviets claimed that the Union Republics which made up the USSR were sovereign states, with the right to secede, and hence should all be allowed to join the UN - along with the Soviet Union. The West refused - the claim of sovereignty was rather unbelievable (as if Stalin would really let anyone secede!), and it would have given the Soviet Union 16 (or more) votes in the General Assembly, which everyone else saw as unfair. Negotiations had reached an impasse, when a diplomatic compromise emerged - two of the Union Republics (Ukraine and Byelorussia) would become UN members, along with the Soviet Union as a whole; the others wouldn’t. Hence, the UN considered them to be “countries”, and since ISO 3166-1 gets its country list from the UN Statistical Division, it did too. It never made much sense from the perspective of reality, it was simply a historical diplomatic fudge.
> And ultimately why would the name country be that important?
I think it is important because (1) it is an exception to their general rule “countries/dependencies only, but not subdivisions thereof” which is defensible using the text of ISO 3166; (2) it is numerically a very limited exception-it doesn’t threaten to open the floodgates; (3) if someone claims “this is unfair bias in favour of the UK”, they can say “no, it is only because of the text of the standards, we are not engaging in any favouritism”; (4) in spite of all the above, there is a lot of political/popular pressure to give in to the demand, due to Scottish and Welsh nationalism; (5) no comparable political pressure exists for US state flags, because no US state has a mainstream nationalist movement
Quebec is funny because it has two abbreviations: the Canadian one and the American one.
One abbreviation is QE, the other QC. Forgot which is which.
Apparently Quebec residents can get a “Quebec” drivers license issue by NY state.