Based on the most important criteria - game balance - no, I don't think they need changing. I don't think it's just my affection for TNN/Eriu that is coloring my opinion that they are not OP. As far as Van goes, I suspect MA Van or maybe Helheim (neither of which I've played under 1.92) are the strongest of the bunch but I haven't heard complaints about them being OP.
My thoughts were basically prompted when it occured to me that starting with 10 gem items bean sidhe could forge items cheaper than other nations could and still make a profit in trade. And since they are recruit everywhere you wouldn't have to make any tough decisions as to how to use them. It seemed like this infringed a bit on Ulm's territory and I thought this was a compromise - keep the forge bonus to facilitate thugging but reduce it to the point where you can't really use it to make a profit in trade.
I gather iRFNA thought the 25% forge bonus on dwarfs/svartalfs was too much. Generally speaking, I think some people think glamour nations shouldn't have a forge bonus at all. Obviously I don't share that opinion and think a forge bonus is important (and not unthematic) to TNN/Eriu in particular but at the same time I'm fine with the non-cap forge bonus being small and mainly benefiting 5 gem magic items.
Leaving things as-is is fine in terms of balance and just adds a new aspect to the nations in terms of them having the ability develop an "Ulm light" forge economy. I was mainly thinking in terms of not infringing on Ulm's angle of having a forge economy.
Also, my comments are just along the lines of fine-tuning - the nations themselves are the most fun and interesting versions yet of TNN and especially Eriu (which had more significant changes).
On the topic of making Dwarf Elders more interesting, any chance of changing the extra E pick CBM gave them to a 50-100% random pick?