According to Saul Kripke, a sentence can say something “meaningful and true” about itself. Its sentential truth-condition (if there is such a thing) is the sentence itself. That is, its meaning is itself. In that case the truth, meaning, reference, etc. of the self-referential sentence aren't different from itself (which is usually the case with non-self-referential sentences). Would that mean that the meaning of “Jack is short” is Jack's being short or the sentence “Jack is short” itself?
If the sentence is named ‘Jack’, then we can say that ‘Jack’ names ‘Jack’ (the sentence) and ‘Jack’ (the name). Therefore the name ‘Jack’, in the sentence, names both ‘Jack’ the name and ‘Jack’ the sentence. We can't even say that the name ‘Jack’ names Jack (without quotation marks). ‘Jack’ is never without quotation marks. We could say that ‘Jack’ names the sentence Jack (without quotation marks). Though if the sentence itself is named ‘Jack’, then when we name this sentence or refer to it we need to put that name or sentence in quotation marks. And if ‘Jack’ also names the ‘Jack’ within the sentence itself, it's still referring to a name that's also a name of the sentence itself. So in all cases the name ‘Jack’ refers to ‘Jack’ the name (of a sentence) and ‘Jack’ the name within the sentence. In that case, the name ‘Jack’, in this context at least, can never refer to the word Jack without quotation marks.
“I'm referring to the name ‘Tony Blair’ that in turn refers to the man Tony Blair.”